Volume 6, Issue 11, November – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

SWOT (Strenghts, weaknesses, Opportunities and

Threats) Analysis of Farmer Producer Companies in
North-Eastern Karnataka
Shweta Karadipatil*1 Dr. D.M. Chanadargi2
PhD Scholar Director of Extension,
Department of Agricultural Extension Education University of Agricultural Sciences,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur Karnataka, India- 584104
Raichur Karnataka, India- 584104

Dr. S. B. Goudappa3 Dr. Basavaraj Hulagur4

Dean Student Welfare, Assistant Professor,
University of Agriculture Sciences, University of Agriculture Sciences,
Raichur Karnataka, India- 584104 Raichur, Karnataka, India- 584104

Dr. D.G.Satihal5 Dr. Pampanna, Y6

Senior Farm Superintendent and Head, Assistant Professor,
Agricultural Research Station Bheemarayangudi, UAS, Main Agricultural Research station, UAS,
Raichur Karnataka, India- 584104 Raichur, Karnataka, India- 584104

Abstract:- The study was conducted in purposively I. INTRODUCTION

selected North-Eastern districts of Karnataka state. A
total of ten Companies were purposively selected from the Farmer Producer Organization/Company is a legal
region in the year 2019. The respondents for the study entity formed by group of farmers or primary producers, viz.,
were the members holding a share in the Company. The agriculture farmers, milk producers, fisherman, small tea
list of registered members was taken from each company growers, weavers, craftsman etc., works closely in support of
growing multiple agriculture and horticulture crop thus the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation and the
25 respondents were randomly selected. Thus, a total of various state governments to enhance production,
260 registered member farmers were selected for the productivity, and profitability of small farmers (Anonymous,
study. Ex-post-facto and exploratory research design was 2013). The basic purpose envisioned for the FPCs is to
used for the study. The collected data was analyzed using collectivize small farmers for backward linkage for inputs
frequency, percentage and standard deviation and ranks like seeds, fertilizers, credit, insurance, knowledge, and
were given accordingly based on the responses. With extension services; and forward linkages such as collective
respect to SWOT analysis, Provision of equity grant was marketing, processing, and market-led agriculture production
identified as major strength in FPCs. The arrangements (Mondal, 2010). Producer organization/company increases
made by FPC to their members by procuring the the skills, revenue and bargaining power of the smallholder
vegetables and fruits giving them opportunity to sell farmers in the production and marketing of their produce.
directly to consumers at increased price. As consumers Producer Companies also disseminate technical knowledge to
were ready to pay more for fresh fruits and vegetables this its members, improve their production efficiency, reduce the
added growers with a price advantage was expressed as transaction costs, market the final produce and are even
major strength by FPC members. The members were of successful in capacity building thereby, fabricating the social
the opinion that whenever the government procures their capital. In this context, it is important to know the strengths
produce, they will get more than market price values and and opportunities which act as positive elements in growth of
the immediate payments through direct benefit transfers the company. As well weaknesses and threats are to be known
have been helping solve financial problems. Higher to rectify the problems and make the company capable of
transportation cost increases the sale price of produce and overcoming such threats and weaknesses.
competition with private companies as a threat was
expressed by majority of members. Members were willing II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
to attend the trainings hence; they suggested that
government and Resource Institute must provide The present study was conducted during the year 2019-
frequent trainings related to agribusiness management 20 in North-Eastern Karnataka to know the motivational
and income generating activities. factors behind joining Farmer Producer Company. The
exploratory and ex-post-facto research designs were used in
Keywords:- Farmer Producer Company, SWOT, Linkages, the present study. Both primary and secondary data was used
North-Eastern Karnataka. in the present study. The exhaustive information using
secondary data of the districts was collected and compiled as
per the desire of the study. A list of active FPCs was collected

IJISRT21NOV575 www.ijisrt.com 990

Volume 6, Issue 11, November – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
from the various officials of development departments like B. Opportunities experienced by members of farmer
Agriculture department, Horticulture department, and producer companies
National bank for Agriculture Development (NABARD) etc. The results from the Table 1 reveals that the major
The primary data was collected from members of FPC, opportunities identified in FPCs were direct marketing to
project managers, village residents, coordinators, personnel consumers in Covid -19 pandemic situation (82.00 %),
of the agricultural and horticulture department, resource employment opportunities at village level (78.24 %),
persons working under various institutions facilitating and processing and brand creation (75.10 %), respectively.
promoting FPC. The data were collected through personal
interviews, observation methods, farmer meetings, and field During the pandemic situation arrangements were
surveys. The primary data were related to behavior and made by FPO to members by procuring the vegetables and
response of respondents including members and non- fruits giving them opportunity to sell directly to consumers at
members of FPCs. The secondary data were collected from increased price. As consumers were ready to pay more for
records of the FPCs records maintained by the associated fresh fruits and vegetables this added growers with a price
NGOs, journals, thesis, and books related to the study as well advantage. Employment opportunities were provided for
as from the internet. The data from both the sources was used packaging the produce and working in custom hiring centers
in combination as per the objectives of the study. for locally available interested members. Processing of
guava, papaya, grapes, chili, mango and tomato has a huge
A. Selection of FPCs under the study scope for FPCs to enter in food retail sector.
The study was conducted in five districts, Kalaburgi,
Koppal, Raichur, Vijayanagar and Yadgir of North-Eastern C. Weaknesses experienced by members of farmer producer
Karnataka. Ten FPCs promoted by Small Farmers companies
Agribusiness Consortium were purposively selected. One The results from the Table 2 indicated that the major
FPC from Vijayanagar district (Tungabhadra Horticulture weaknesses experienced by members were irregular
Farmer Producer Company Ltd.) four from Kalaburgi procurement from government (87.23 %), inadequate
(Nisargha Farmer Producer Company Ltd., Rohini Farmer transportation facilities (82.35 %) and lack of storage and
Producer Company Ltd., Negilayogi Horticulture Farmer secondary processing facilities (80.21 %), respectively.
Producer Company Ltd. and Grameena Horticulture Farmer
Producer Company Ltd.), two each from Koppal Delay in procurement makes members to realize lesser
(Abhinavashri Horticulture Farmer Producer Company Ltd. prices. The members were of the opinion that whenever the
and Yelaburga Horticulture Farmer Producer Company Ltd.) government procures their produce, they will get more than
and Raichur (Raichur Farmer Producer Company Ltd. and market price values and the immediate payments through
Amareshwara Farmer Producer Company Ltd.), and one from direct benefit transfers have been helping solve financial
Yadgir (Bhagyodaya Farmer Producer Company Ltd.) were problems. Vegetable growers mainly expressed need of
selected under the study. adequate transportation facilities. FPCs were suffering with
low storage and secondary processing facilities which were
B. Selection of the respondents under the study hindering post harvest management technologies.
From each FPC twenty five members were randomly
selected which comprised a total of two hundred and sixty D. Threats experienced by members of farmer producer
respondents under the study. The indivuals scores were companies
totaled and mean scores were given ranks according to the The results from the Table 2 depicts that the major
response obtained by members. threats expressed by members were market risk and price
fluctuations (85.31 %) followed by competition from private
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS companies (79.87 %) and political interference (74.21 %),
respectively.
A. Strengths experienced by members of farmer producer
companies Higher transportation cost increases the sale price of
The Table 1 revealed that the major strengths identified produce and competition with private companies. Market risk
in FPCs were the provision of equity grant and state and price fluctuations in agriculture are all time concern.
department facilities (83.33 %) followed by reduction in Political interference affects the decision making and creates
transactional cost of members (74.68 %) and linkages created bias in input distribution in FPCs were the threats expressed
with other development organizations (71.68 %), by members.
respectively.
E. Suggestions expressed by members of farmer producer
Provision of equity grant was identified as major companies
strength in FPCs. Farmer producer organizations have The results from Table 3 revealed that cent per cent of
entered into agreement with agencies like IFFCO and the members suggested that government must procure
wholesalers for bulk supply of fertilizers, bio-pesticides and produce regularly followed by (95.32 %) suggested for need
seeds etc. FPCs through State Agriculture and Horticulture of adequate infrastructure facilities like own office space and
departments were able for providing technical advice, storage structures, (94.12 %) suggested for provision of
conduction of trainings for members. frequent trainings, (92.83 %) for provision of adequate
transportation facilities, (91.38 %) suggested for regular and

IJISRT21NOV575 www.ijisrt.com 991

Volume 6, Issue 11, November – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
timely grants availability from government, (85.00 %) for provide frequent trainings related to agribusiness
avoidance of political interference and (84.56 %) suggested management and income generating activities. Members felt
for provision of collection centre at each village, respectively. that political intervention in input supply shops of FPO
sometimes creates bias in availability of inputs to members.
Members were willing to attend the trainings hence;
they suggested that government and Resource Institute must

Sl. No. Strengths Per cent Rank

1. Experience of SHG groups of FPCs 64.00 5
2. Unity and co-operation among members and directors 68.43 4
3. Linkages created with other development organizations 71.68 3
4. Members willingness in agri-business activities 62.00 6
5. Board members contribution in infrastructure facilities 56.46 8
6. Equity grant and state department facilities 83.33 1
7. Reduction in transactional cost of members 74.68 2
8. Board members dedication and educated CEO 43.15 9
9. Bulk procurement of pulse and horticulture crops 61.21 7
Sl. No. Opportunities Per cent Rank
1. KVK and NGO support 68.86 4
2. In Covid-19 pandemic direct marketing to consumers 82.00 1
3. Processing and brand creation for produce 75.10 3
4. Employment opportunities at village level 78.24 2
5. Export of pulses and fruit crops 62.71 5
6. Dynamic leadership of CEO 52.63 7
7 Tie ups with corporate industries 61.17 6
Table 1: Rank order of strengths and opportunities experienced in FPCs (n= 260)

Sl. No. Weaknesses Per cent Rank

1. Insufficient trainings and exposure visits 79.61 4
2. Lack of storage and secondary processing facilities 80.21 3
3. Delayed payments 73.54 6
4. Domination by directors 61.29 8
5. Frequent change in CEOs 63.75 7
6. Lack of technical guidance to all members 75.96 5
7. Inadequate transportation facilities 82.35 2
8. Irregular procurement from government 87.23 1
9. Non utilization of processing facilities 57.29 9
Sl. No. Threats Per cent Rank
1. Market risk and price fluctuations 85.31 1
2. Competition from private companies 79.87 2
3. Political interference 74.21 3
4. Local traders resistance for produce 72.35 4
6. Administrative controls 60.71 5
Table 2: Rank order of weaknesses and threats experienced in FPCs (n= 260)

Sl. No. Suggestions Per cent Rank

1. Government must ensure procurement of produce every year on regular basis 100.00 1
2. Adequate infrastructure facilities like own office space and storage structures 95.32 2
3. Provision of frequent trainings on agri-business 94.12 3
4. Political interference must be avoided 85.00 6
5. Provision of collection centre at each village 84.56 7
6. Regular and timely grants availability from government 91.38 5
7. Provision of adequate transportation facilities 92.83 4
9. Equal chance to all members to get directorship 83.07 8
10. Appointment of village level workers 80.00 9
Table 3: Rank order of suggestions as expressed by members to overcome weaknesses of FPCs (n= 260)

IJISRT21NOV575 www.ijisrt.com 992

Volume 6, Issue 11, November – 2021 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
REFERENCES

[1]. Aditya, R. L. S., “Study on organisational structure of

farmer producer organisations for effective value chain
analysis - A case analysis of Telangana and Karnataka.”
M. Sc. Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agric.Univ., 2015,
India.
[2]. Darshan, N. P., Rajashekar, B., Patil, K. V., Ravi, K. N.
and Parameshwar Naik, J., “Farmer Producing
Organizations for development of farmers in India: An
Economic perspective”, 2017., Int. J. Current
Microbio. and Applied Sci., 6(9): 1611-1615.
[3]. Manaswi, B. H., Pramod K. P., Prakash, P., Anbukkani,
Amit K., Jha G. K., Rao, D. U. M. and Lenin, V.,
“Evaluation of farmer producer organizations of
Telangana- A SWOT analysis approach.” 2019, J.
Sustain. Dev., 14(3): 457-466.
[4]. Mukherjee, A., Singh, P., Rakshit, S., Priya, S., Burman,
R. R., Shubha, K., Sinha, K. and Nikam, V.,
“Effectiveness of Poultry Based Farmers’ Producer
Organization and its Impact on Livelihood
Enhancement of Rural Women.” 2019, Indian J. Anim.
Sci., 89(10): 1152-1160.
[5]. Mukherjee, A., Singh, P., Ray, M., Satyapriya. and
Burman, R. R., “Enhancing farmer’s income through
farmer’s producers companies in India: Status and
roadmap.” 2018, Indian J. Agric. Sci., 88(8): 1151-
1161.
[6]. Mwaura, F., “Effect of farmer group membership on
agricultural technology adoption and crop productivity
in Uganda.” 2014, African Crop Sci. J., 22: 917-927.
[7]. Nadiia, P., “Producer Company as an Institutional
option for small farmers in India.” 2011, M.Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Lunds Univ., Lund (Sweden).
[8]. Preethi, S., “Case study on Farmers Producers
Organization in Maharashtra in the era of
globalization.” 2015, IMRD’s J. Management and Res.,
4(2): 1-11.
[9]. Trebbin, A. and Hassler, M., “Farmers’ producer
companies in India: a new concept for collective
action?” 2012, Environ. Plan., 44(2): 411- 427.
[10]. Trebbin, A., “Linking small farmers to modern retail
through producer organizations - Experiences with
producer companies in India”. 2014, Food Policy, 45:
35-44.
[11]. Varun, P., “Contract farming through farmer producer
organizations (FPCs) in India”. Charan Singh Univ.,
2013, Meerut. p. 1-46.
[12]. Yadav, S., Joshi, S. K. and Gauraha, A. K.,
“Management status of farmer producer organizations
(FPCS) in Chhattisgarh plains”. 2018, J. Pharmacogn.
Phytochem., 7(3): 3288-3290.

IJISRT21NOV575 www.ijisrt.com 993