MARKETING OF GRAPES AND RAISINS AND POST-HARVEST LOSSES OF FRESH GRAPES IN MAHARASHTRA

Indian J. Agric. Res., 39 (3) : 167-176, 2005 MARKETING OF GRAPES AND RAISINS AND POST-HARVEST LOSSES OF FRESH GRAPES IN MAHARASHTRA M.S. Ladaniya, Vinod Wanjari and Bipinchandra Mahalle National Research Centre for Citrus, Amrawati Road, Nagpur - 440 010, India ABSTRACT Price spread and losses in grapes and marketing economics of raisins in Maharashtra were studied. Major marketing channels were: 1) Grower - commission agent - retailer - consumer for local and distant markets and 2) Grower - C.A. - trader - retailer - consumer for distant upcountry markets. Marketing efficiency was 1.27 when produce was sold by producer directly to retailer. When produce was sold to trader in vineyard, efficiency was 0.50 with share of producer 33.65% in consumer s rupee. In longer channels, effiency was 0.48, with producer s share 32.50% in consumer rupee. Raisin making was profitable and earned Rs. 50,500/- additional than marketing grapes. Marketing of raisins was through commission agents. Losses in grapes were 1-1.25% at farm, 5.5-8.65% at wholesale and 12.25-16% at retail level. Negative correlation co-efficient was recorded in monthly s and arrivals at national level and major markets in Maharashtra. INTRODUCTION During 1996-97 area under grapes in Maharashtra was 24,681 ha with 4.93 lakh metric tonnes of production (Anonymous, 1997). Presently grapes cover 28,500 ha area in the state with 7.8 lakh tonnes of annual production with average productivity of 25-30 tonnes/ha. Out of 10.83 lakh tonnes of grape production in India, Maharashtra contributes nearly 8 lakh tonnes thus accounting to 80% of the country s production. Nasik and Sangli districts contribute more than 70% of the production in the state. Grape produce of the state is worth Rs.2000 crores (20,000 million Rupees) at wholesale of Rs.25,000 per tonne indicating importance of this crop in agrarian economy. Grape is also an important foreign exchange earning crop in export. Maharashtra is contributing to more than 90% of the raisin (dried grapes) production in the country (Tambe, 2002). There are no studies concerning assessment of losses in grapes from harvesting to retail marketing. Inspite of higher productivity, the s received by grape growers are not remunerative. The major share goes to marketing costs and margins. Therefore, detailed investigations were taken up with the objectives to study channels of marketing, spread and marketing efficiency, pattern of arrivals and s, compare economics of fresh grape marketing vis-a-vis raisin marketing and estimate losses of fresh grapes at farm, wholesale and retail level in selected areas and markets. MATERIAL AND METHODS The primary data on marketing practices and s were collected from Pimpalgaon Baswant (Nasik district) and Tasgoan (Sangli district). The study has covered sixty farmers (thirty from each place covering 20 km radial distance) selected randomly during 2000-01 season. Ten wholesaler s and ten retailers at Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur market were interviewed, for market information and practices followed. The marketing channels for grapes were identified. The tabular method and percentage analysis was carried out to examin costs, returns and spread. The marketing efficiency was estimated by using modified formula given by Acharya and Agarwal (1999). Losses at farm level were estimated during harvesting at Pimpalgaon and Tasgaon. At 30 farms in each production area, 100kg

168 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH fruit of Thompson Seedless were sorted. Rotten, small/mummified and bruised berries were separated. Weights were taken for estimation of loss on per cent basis. Average values (of thirty farms) are reported. At wholesale level, 5 boxes of 4 kg each at Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur markets were drawn randomly from five different wholesalers. Rotten and dropped/shattered berries were segregated. Weight of such berries and healthy bunches were taken, losses were determined on per cent basis and averages of five boxes from each market are reported. The shattered or dropped berries are those that separate from bunches during handling and transport or due to drying of peduncle. The losses were also estimated in grapes packed in bamboo baskets at Mumbai wholesale market by sampling 5 baskets (each of 15 kg). Rotten, ruptured and shattered berries were segregated, weighed and per cent loss determined. Loss was reported as minimum, maximum and average of five baskets. For loss estimation at retail level, 5 boxes (4 kg each) were drawn randomly from 5 retailers at each of Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur markets. Healthy bunches and lost berries were segregated as mentioned above, weights were taken and loss estimated on percent basis. Average values of five boxes at each market are given. Mumbai, Pune, Nagpur and Nasik were selected based on their importance in the state, quantity of grape arrival and their vicinity to production areas. The annual and monthly time series data on arrivals and s of grapes for 1991-2000 were collected to study the pattern. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pimpalgaon Baswant (Nasik district) Harvesting and packaging Four major commercial varieties, Thompson seedless, Sonaka, Tas-e-Ganesh and Sharad seedless (Black) comprised 90% of the grape production in the study area. On an average yields were 10 tonnes per acre in well managed orchard, while 5-10 tonnes per acre were common. Grape bunches were packed in cartons after removing small, and rotten berries. Vented cartons (corrugated fibre board, 5 ply) of 2, 4, 5, 7 kg capacity were used for distant markets. Paper cuttings/shreds, newspaper and tissue paper were used for cushioning and covering the fruits. For nearby markets, grapes were packed in bamboo baskets also using news paper and grape leaves as cushioning to avoid bruising to fruit. After filling the basket (usually 14 to 16 kg net weight of the fruit), fruit was covered with news paper and jute cloth is stitched to close it. Vented plastic crates (20 kg capacity) were also used for packing using newspaper as cushioning and sent to North Indian markets which then sent back to production area and thus used several times. Traders from different parts of the country purchased the fruit in the orchards at Pimpalgaon Baswant and packed it. Packing cost was borne by the trader. Farmer transported fruit boxes from the orchard to specified transport area. From this area 70-80 trucks were sent to distant markets every day in the season all over the country. Grapes were sent to Delhi market in corrugated cartons from where it is sent to further upcountry markets. Farmers also packed their produce themselves in corrugated cartons and sold it in different markets such as Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur. Tasgaon (Sangli district) Harvesting and packaging Harvesting and packing procedures and channels of marketing were similar at Tasgaon as mentioned for Pimpalgaon Baswant. Over 90% of the produce was sent to the distant markets by the farmers and traders. The traders purchased the produce at vineyard itself. Produce was also packed in bamboo baskets for nearby markets like Pune

Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005 169 and Mumbai. There are number of raisin making units at Tasgaon and Pandharpur (Solapur district) area of Maharashtra. From 1kg grapes, 250 g raisins were obtained i.e. 25% of the fresh grapes. Tasgaon is the biggest raisin market in the country. After harvesting, the grapes were dipped into solution containing mixture of dipping oil and potassium carbonate. Bunches were then kept for drying on the racks in the shed for 15 days. It was followed by destemming, sorting, grading and packing. Raisin were graded in to 3 categories according to colour and quality. Following channels were recorded for marketing of fresh grapes in study areas of Nasik and Sangli districts. 1. Farmer - Retailer - Consumer (Local channel) 2. Farmer - Trader/Commission agent - Retailer - Consumer (Local and distant channel) 3. Farmer - Trader/Commission agent from distant market - Trader/Buyer from near by smaller towns in distant areas) - Retailer - Consumer (distant channel). Marketing costs, margins and spread for fresh grapes Producer got 56% of the rupee spent by the consumer when retailer directly purchased produce from him and sold in retail market as shown in channel I (Table1). However, this channel was operational in production areas only. In channel II, where trader from distant market purchased fruit in orchard, packed it and transported it to the distant market, producer s share was less (33.65%) due to increased marketing cost. Packing, transportation and marketing cost accounted 18.12% which was borne by the trader. The margin of the retailer was 22.50% of the consumers rupee. This indicated that as the length of channel increased with more and more functionaries, the marketing cost increased and customer had to pay higher. The net received by producer was Rs. 13.46-14 per kg fruit. Kodag (1999) reported that producers got of Rs. 11-16/kg depending on the quality during 1995. Data in Table 2 indicated that when producer packed and sold produce in different markets like Mumbai and Pune, the cost of marketing borne by him was nearly 12-15% of the consumers rupee. The retailer got maximum share (37-48.5%) depending upon the at which he sold the produce. The commission was only 4 to 6% of the paid by the consumer (Table 2). The producer s share in paid by the consumer was 36.70 and 42.72% at Pune and Mumbai markets, respectively. Retailer took higher share and hence the share of producer was reduced. Marketing efficiency and producer s share were reduced as the margins of the market functionaries increased. At Bijapur (Karnataka), the producer s share was 74.79% in paid by consumer in the channel: Producer - commission agent/w.s. - Retailer - consumer (Shellikeri and Mundinamani, 1999). At Nagpur market (Table 3), traders brought the grapes from production areas after packing and transportation and sold it in wholesale market where retailer from the local markets purchased the fruit (channel I) or trader from the nearby towns such as Raipur, Durg or Bhilai (M.P.), came to purchase the produce (channel II). As the channel got longer and commodity went farther, marketing cost increased as more functionaries came in the trade. Ultimately consumer had to buy produce at higher. In channel II, marketing efficiency was just 0.48. If producers have their own marketing organization,they can tap these markets by selling the produce directly to retailer and thus get better returns. Marketing of raisins The cost of making raisins was Rs. 10,000/- for 10 tonnes grapes i.e. Rs. 10/kg (Table 4). The wholesale rates were @ Rs. 75/kg. Raisins were mostly sent to the

170 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 1. Price spread for grapes (Sonaka) sold through channel I and channel II at production areas in Nasik district Name of functionary Channel I % of Channel II % of Rs./kg consumer s Rs./kg consumer s Net received by the producer 14.00 56 13.46 33.65 Expenses incurred by the producer a. Commission of commission agent b. Transportation charges 0.54 1.35 c. Miscellaneous Sub-Total 0.54 1.35 Producer s sales /commission agent 14.0 35 or wholesalers purchase Expenses of trader/wholesaler a. Commission of commission agent 2.00 5.00 b. Other marketing charges (market fee, auction etc.) c. Packing cost 2.25 5.62 d. Transportation charges 2.50 6.25 e. Processing cost f. Miscellaneous 0.50 1.25 Sub-Total 7.25 18.12 Whole saler margin 8.75 21.87 Producer s or traders or wholesalers 14.00 56 30 75 sales /retailer s purchase Expenses incurred by the retailer a. Commission of commission agent b. Other marketing charges (market 0.25 0.62 fee, auction etc.) c. Packing cost d. Transportation charges 1.00 4.00 0.50 1.25 e. Processing cost f. Miscellaneous 0.50 2 0.25 0.62 Sub-Total 1.50 6 1.0 2.50 Retailer s margin 9.50 38 9.00 22.50 Retailer s sales /consumer s 25/- 40/- purchase Marketing Efficiency 1.27 0.50 Channel I Producer - Retailer - Consumer (local market nearby production area) (Malegaon market) Fruit procured by retailer directly from orchard Channel II Producer - Trader/Wholesaler - Retailer - Consumer (Fruit purchased by traders from distant markets at Pimpalgaon, packed and transported to distant markets.) Note: In channel II, producer had to transport produce from the vineyard to transport terminal on his own cost while all other charges were borne by the trader. Table 2. Price spread for grapes (Sonaka) at Pune and Mumbai markets Name of functionary Pune market % of Mumbai market % of Channel I consumer s Channel II consumer s Rs./kg Rs./kg Net received by the producer 11.01 36.70 10.71 42.84 Expenses incurred by the producer (Contd.

Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005 171 Name of functionary Pune market % of Mumbai market % of Channel I consumer s Channel II consumer s Rs./kg Rs./kg a. Harvesting 0.50 1.66 0.50 2.00 b. Commission of commission agent 1.2 4 1.5 6 c. Other marketing charges (market fee etc) 0.12 0.4 0.12 0.48 d. Packing cost 0.50 1.66 0.50 2 e. Transportation charges 1.66 5.53 1.66 6.64 f. Miscellaneous 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 Sub-Total 3.99 11.63 4.29 15.16 Producer s or traders or wholesalers sales / 15.00 15.00 retailer s purchase Expenses incurred by the retailer a. Commission of commission agent b. Market fee, auction etc. 0.15 0.5 0.25 1 c. Packing cost d. Transportation charges 0.30 1 0.5 2 e. Miscellaneous Sub-Total 0.45 1.5 0.75 3 Retailer s margin 14.55 48.5 9.25 37 Retailer s sales /consumer s purchase 30 25 Marketing Efficiency 0.57 0.75 Channel I Producer - Commission agent (Pune) - Retailer - Consumer Channel II Producer - Commission agent (Mumbai) - Retailer - Consumer Table 3. Price spread of grapes (Sonaka) sold at Nagpur and further upcountry markets Name of functionary Channel I % of Channel II % of Rs./kg consumer s Rs./kg consumer s Net received by the producer 13.00 40.62 13.00 32.5 Expenses incurred by the producer Producer s sales /commission agent or 13.00 40.62 13.00 32.5 traders purchase Expenses of trader/wholesaler a. Commission of commission agent 1.60 4.0 b. Market fee, auction etc. c. Packing cost 1.75 4.38 d. Transportation charges 1.50 3.75 e. Miscellaneous Sub-Total 4.85 12.13 Whole saler margin 2.15 5.38 Wholesalers/traders sales / 20.00 50.00 traders purchase Expenses incurred by the trader a. Commission 1.60 5.0 1.92 4.8 b. Marketing charges (market fee etc.) c. Packing cost 1.75 5.47 d. Transportation charges 1.50 4.69 1.00 2.5 e. Miscellaneous Sub-Total 4.85 15.16 2.92 7.3 Traders margin 2.15 6.72 9.08 22.7 Traders sales /retailers purchase 20.00 62.5 32.00 80.00 (Contd.

172 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Name of functionary Channel I % of Channel II % of Rs./kg consumer s Rs./kg consumer s Expenses incurred by the retailer a. Commission b. Marketing charges (market fee etc.) 0.25 0.78 0.25 0.63 c. Packing cost d. Transportation charges 0.50 1.56 0.50 1.25 e. Miscellaneous Sub-Total 0.75 2.34 0.75 1.88 Retailers Margin 11.25 35.16 7.25 18.13 Retailers sales /consumers purchase 32.00 100.00 40.00 100.00 Marketing Efficiency 0.68 0.48 Channel I Producer - Trader - Retailer - Consumer Channel II Producer - Trader (Nagpur) - Trader (Raipur or Durg or Bhilai) - Retailer - Consumer Note: Farmer sold the fruit to the trader in vineyard at Tasgaon and incurred no expenditure on marketing. Table 4. Comparative economics of marketing of fresh grapes and raisin Fresh grapes Raisins Production of grapes from 1 acre 10 tonnes 2.5 tonnes from 10 tonnes fresh grapes Cost of production of fresh grapes Rs. 60,000/ acre Rs. 60,000/acre Cost of production of raisin from 10 tonnes fruit - Rs. 10,000 Cost of marketing Rs. 34,900/- for Rs. 12,000 for 2.5 tonnes raisin 10 tonnes fruit Gross receipts Rs. 1,40,000 @ Rs. 1,87,500 @ Rs. 75/kg raisin Rs. 14/kg grapes Net receipts = Gross receipts - Rs. 55,000/- Rs. 1,05,500/- Marketing cost + Production cost Additional benefit in raisin making Rs. 50,500/- Note: Marketing costs for fresh grapes as recorded at Pune market (Table 2, channel I). north Indian market like U.P. and Gujarat and also in Maharashtra at Mumbai and Pune. The raisins imported from Afghanistan (Chaman and Sundekhani) had higher rates up to Rs. 300/kg. The marketing cost of raisin including grading, packing and commission was Rs. 5/ kg. Pawar and Pawar (1998) reported that the cost of marketing of raisin was Rs. 3580/- and Rs. 4930/- per tonne for off-farm and on-farm production, respectively. The farmers who produced raisins on-farm incurred higher cost in grading and packing. In present study, per tonne cost of raisin marketing was recorded at Rs. 5000/- which included grading, transportation and commission. The economics of fresh grape marketing vis-a-vis value addition by making raisin indicated that additional Rs. 55,500/- can be earned in production and marketing of raisin from one acre crop of 10 tonne grapes as compared with fresh grape marketing. Raisins can be kept in cold storage for about 1 year and storage charges were Rs. 300/tonne/month. Post-harvest losses in fresh grapes Grape is a perishable commodity and losses take place as the fruit moves from vineyard to retail market through various channels. At the time of harvesting and packing, very small/hot berries, mummified and rotten berries are removed from the bunches using scissors. This loss constituted 1.00-1.25% only which indicated there was

Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005 173 Table 5. Per cent post-harvest losses in grapes at different stages of marketing Stage of handling/ Causes of loss Loss (%) Loss (%) marketing Pimpalgaon (Nashik) Tasgaon (Sangli) Farm level 1. Small and mummified berries 0.80 1.01 2. Rotting 0.20 0.24 3. Bruises/splitting 0.00 0.00 Total 1.00 1.25 Wholesale level Mumbai Pune Nagpur 1. Rotting 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.Shattered berries 5.50 6.00 8.65 3. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 5.50 6.00 8.65 Retail level 1. Rotting 2.50 3.00 3.15 2. Softened berries 2.50 2.50 3.60 3. Shattered berries 7.25 7.50 9.25 4. Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 12.25 13.00 16.00 Note: Average losses at farms at Pimpalgaon and Tasgaon. In a channel of Producer - Wholesaler - Retailer - Consumer, the cartons/boxes were taken at the wholesale and retail markets given above. Table 6. The losses of grapes in bamboo basket at wholesale market Mumbai Causes of losses Loss (%) Minimum Maximum Average* 1. Ruptured and pressed 1.14 11.64 6.54 2. Rotting 1.65 5.64 3.64 3. Shattered 8.16 19.86 14.01 11.25 37.14 24.19 Note: Five bamboo baskets (15 kg each) were randomly taken from a lot arrived from Sangli (Tasgaon) area at Mumbai. * Average of five baskets. The channel was Producer - Wholesaler - Retailer. Producer packed fruit in baskets and sent to commission agents/w.s. through truck transport to Mumbai. no difference in loss at vineyard level at Nasik and Sangli. Shellikeri and Mundinamani (1999) reported that 362.80 kg of grape out of 32,347.20 kg produced per ha were lost. The present findings confirmed these results from Karnataka. At Nagpur, Mumbai and Pune wholesale markets, the losses were due to berry shatter in the boxes and varied from 5.50-8.65 (Table 5). Berries separated from the bunch due to drying of rachis and peduncle. Loss increased as the transportation distance and time increased from Sangli to Nagpur as compared with Sangli to Pune and Mumbai. These berries were acceptable and sold at reduced by the retailers who incurred economic loss. The loose berries were sold at the rate of Rs. 3/kg as compared to Rs. 30/ kg for grape bunches. Considering average 8% loss due to berry shatter at retail level, the economic loss to retailer in every one quintal of fruit trading was estimated to be Rs. 216/- on the basis of above s. At retailer s level, total loss varied from 12.25-16.00% in different retail markets surveyed; highest being in Nagpur market. The total loss for grapes packed in boxes varied from 17.75-24.65% including wholesale and retail level. Shattered berries

174 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 7. Correlation coefficient in s and arrivals of grapes at national level and in major wholesale markets of Maharashtra Nagpur Pune Year Price Arrival Correlation Year Price Arrival Correlation (Rs./ (Metric coefficient (Rs./ (Metric coefficient tonne) tonne) (r) tonne) tonne) (r) 1991 12105 2664 +0.2701 1991 9230 3407-0.5670 1992 12792 5920-0.6440 1992 9287 4374-0.4502 1993 11750 4282 +0.6846 1993 9836 3941-0.9884 1994 13213 2312-0.6474 1994 9627 2013-0.4958 1995 15700 1885-0.5094 1995 10355 3149-0.7770 1996 17617 2441-0.5618 1996 11778 3393-0.5364 1997 17742 3438-0.6312 1997 13720 10978-0.1690 1998 20245 1921-0.5542 1998 17192 1323-0.6351 1999 23320 1869-0.6369 1999 16730 2216-0.7093 2000 22760 1384 +0.1908 2000 18464 2230-0.7846 Correlation coefficient (r) for ten years = - 0.6269 Correlation coefficient (r) for ten years = - 0.1453 Mumbai Nasik Year Price Arrival Correlation Year Price Arrival Correlation (Rs./ (Metric coefficient (Rs./ (Metric coefficient tonne) tonne) (r) tonne) tonne) (r) 1991 13202 7583-0.7982 1991 9470 114 1992 13352 6282-0.9409 1992 8185 133 1993 13103 11560-0.9169 1993 8270 119-0.6921 1994 13657 6580-0.9652 1994 8563 108-0.3835 1995 16427 9284-0.9340 1995 12655 76 1996 16796 21230-0.5775 1996 11662 3299-0.6492 1997 19264 19280-0.9649 1997 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1998 21914 10140-0.2005 1998 15190 3983 0.8399 1999 24836 18491-0.7789 1999 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2000 20625 25200 +0.5761 2000 N.A. N.A. N.A. Correlation coefficient (r) for ten years = +0.6131 Correlation coefficient (r) for four years = +0.9466 National Year Price Arrival Correlation (Rs./ (Metric coefficient tonne) tonne) (r) 1994 14922 88466-0.9111 1995 17610 91404-0.8600 1996 20095 120021-0.8877 1997 19898 129091-0.9339 1998 22754 70857-0.7240 1999 23798 133928-0.9326 2000 24078 156891-0.9487 Correlation coefficient (r) for seven years = +0.5160 constituted up to 70% of the total loss of berries from the bunches in the marketing channel. The disorder called as pink berries in the field also lead to softening of berries in the box. The rotting constituted up to 20% of the total lost fruit at retail level. Rotting was mainy due to Botrytis spp. and Rhizopus spp. In south India, at retail and hawker s level losses in grapes were estimated to be 5 and 4.5%, respectively (Shanmugavelu, 1989).

Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005 175 Month Fig. 1. Grapes s at national level Arrival in metric tonnes Price in Rs./tonne Month Fig. 2. Grapes arrival at national level

176 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH In bamboo baskets, relatively higher losses were recorded (Table 6). At Mumbai wholesale market, the loss ranged from 11.25-37.14% with average of 24.19%. Loose and careless packing and rough handling of baskets resulted in breaking of stem laterals resulting in small clumps of berries. This packing container had no dimensional strength and hence produce also got pressed. The wastage in grapes was reported to be 14% in baskets (Anonymous, 1965). Pattern of s and arrivals of fresh grapes Grape s increased over the period of time from 1991 to 2000 in all the markets studied, maximum increase in being in Mumbai market up to 1999 (Table 7). In the year 2000, s were higher in Nagpur market than Mumbai, Pune and Nasik market. The s were substantially low in Pune and Nasik markets as compared to Nagpur and Mumbai market, probably due to proximity of Nasik and Pune cities to production areas such as Pimpalgaon Baswant and Sangli, respectively. Arrivals of grapes did not increase much during last ten years (1991-2000) in Nagpur, Pune and Nasik markets with exception of higher arrival in Pune during 1997. The arrivals were nearly 5000 metric tonnes or less in all these market during 1991-2000. On the contrary in Mumbai market arrivals were substantially higher indicating demand in that market. With record arrival of 25,200 tonnes during 2000 in Mumbai market, the declined. The negative correlation co-efficient in monthly s and arrivals within a year in all the markets with few exceptions indicated that normal pattern of decrease in s with increase in arrivals occurred during 1991 to 2000 (Table 7). At Mumbai, arrivals increased over the years (1991 to 2000) and s also increased with positive correlation between the years. During the period of 1991 to 2000, the arrivals increased from 7583 metric tonnes in 1991 to 25,200 in the year 2000 with increase in s from Rs. 13,202/- per tonne in 1991 to Rs. 20,625/- per tonne in the year 2000 thus recording positive correlation. This increase in over the years accompanied with increase in arrivals indicated increase in demand either due to growing population or better purchasing power (improved standards of living) or both in this metropolitan city during the decade. There was a seasonal variation in arrival and s of grapes (Fig. 1 and 2). The arrival started from December and increased considerably in April-May, which was the peak season. By the end of May arrivals decreased. Prices were stable during February-April and then increased in May at the fag end of the season. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Funds provided by ICAR, New Delhi, through the Ad-hoc Network project on Marketing and post-harvest losses of fruits and vegetables in India to conduct the study are acknowledged. The encouragement given by Dr. Shyam Singh,Director, NRCC, Nagpur is highly appreciated. REFERENCES Acharya, S.S. and Agarwal, N.L. (1999). Agricultural Marketing in India (Third Edition) Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. pp 311. Anonymous (1965). Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables. Agriculture Marketing Series, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Govt. of India. No. 149. Anonymous (1997). Area and Production of Fruit Crops in Maharashtra (1996-97). Department of Horticulture, M.S. Pune. Kodag, V.B. (1999). Indian J. Agric. Marktg. (Abstract), 13(2) pp 63. Pawar, B.N. and Pawar, R.J. (1998). Indian J. Agric. Econ., 53: 416-17. Shellikeri, S.G. and Mundinamani, S.M. (1999). Indian J. Agric. Marktg., 13(2) pp 64. Shanmugavelu, K.G.(1989). Viticulture in India. Today and Tomorrow Press, Jodhpur. Tambe, T. (2002). Shetkari (Marathi). Jan-Feb 2002 Special issue as Agric. Produce Export and Processing pp. 103-105.

Month Fig. 1. Grapes s at national level Arrival in metric tonnes Price in Rs./tonne Month Fig. 2. Grapes arrival at national level