marketing of biofertilizers

7/28/2019 marketing of biofertilizers

1/23

Marketing of Bio-Fertilizers

ABSTRACT:

Bio-fertilizers are living cells of different types of micro-organisms (bacterial, algae and fungi), whichhave an ability to mobilize nutritionally importantelements from non-usable to usable form. Thesemicro-organisms require organic matter for their growth and activity in soil and provide valuablenutrients to the plants in the soil.

Bio-fertilizers are seen as an important alternativetechnology, since the negative externalities of chemical fertilizers have become well known. Theuse of the latter has led to considerableenvironmental cost. Bio-fertilizers do not pollute thesoil and do not disrupt the ecological balance, andhence are environment-friendly. An increasingnumber of farmers are using bio-fertilizers, and thenumbers of bio-fertilizer manufacturing units havealso grown considerably.

However, the market for bio-fertilizers is still notwell developed, and the bio-fertilizer industry has nothad the growth that was anticipated. The use of bio-fertilizers has still not spread uniformly although

there has been a steady rise in their use by certaingroups of farmers.

This paper explores the reasons for low rate of adoption of bio-fertilizers through the case studies of two organizations involved in the production andmarketing of bio-fertilizers.

MARKETING OF BIO-FERTILIZERS

INTRODUCTION:


2/23

Bio-fertilizers are microbial inoculants for enhancinggrowth of plants. They act as catalysts in providingvaluable nutrients to the plant through phosphatesolubilising, nitrogen fixing and growth promotingmicrobes.

The use of bio-fertilizers has gained credence, as thenegative externalities of chemical fertilizers have

become well known. Chemical fertilizers are cost-intensive and lead to high yield in the short run. Inthe long run, however, they erode soil fertility andharm the natural predators of pests in the

biosphere. All this leads to even greater use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and thereforehigher cost to farmers.

The utility of bio-fertilizers has been validatedthrough large-scale field trials by government andsemi-government agencies as well as private

bodies. The government has provided subsidies for production of bio-fertilizers for over twodecades. Why then, has this technology not diffusedto the extent estimated? The paper explores how thereasons for low rate of adoption of bio-fertilizersthrough case studies of two organizations marketing

bio-fertilizers.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY: To explore the reasons for low rate of

adoption of bio-fertilizers in Indianagriculture.

To study the marketing activities of twoorganizations manufacturing bio-fertilizers intwo talukas in Pune district.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SOURCESOF DATA: The paper draws on earlier studies conducted on bio-


3/23

fertilizer usage in India, and supplements these withfield interviews with farmers, dealers, extensionworkers and officers, of two organizationsmanufacturing and marketing bio-fertilizers. Theofficers were located in Pune, while the farmers,

dealers, and extension workers were located in sevenvillages, Kunjirwadi, Inamdarwasti, Kedgaon,Delavadi, Pargaon, Dhorkin, Loni-Kalbhor, in twotalukas- Haveli, Daund in Pune District. The basisfor selecting these villages was, that both theorganizations selected for case studies, have a

presence in these areas, in terms of their marketingactivities. In all, 15 farmers, 4 extension workers, 5dealers, and 4 officers were interviewed. Theinterviews were conducted with the help of detailedschedules. The farmers, who were the target

consumers, were diverse, having different education,scale of operations, and different size of landholding,ranging from 1 acre to 60 acres.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The Response Hierarchy Models of Communicationsuch as the AIDA Model (Strong, 1928), Hierarchyof Effects Model Landge and Steiner, 1961) andInnovation Adoption Model (Rogers, 1999) assumethat buyers pass through three stages of decision

making, before buying a product. These are thecognitive, affective, and behavioural stages.

The rate of adoption of a product is influenced by thefollowing factors:

Product features that satisfy an unmet need Characteristics of users of the product The value of the product in terms of cost and

benefits attached to it Perceptions of the value of competing

offerings Adoption of complementary

products/technology Government policies and actions impacting

the sale of the product

Diffusion is the process by which an innovation iscommunicated through channels over time among the


4/23

members of a social system. An innovation is anidea, object, or practice that is perceived as new byan individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers,1995) According to Roger s Innovation DiffusionModel, adoption of an innovation depends on the

following 5 elements:

1. Relative advantage of the innovation over theearlier idea, objector practice

2. Compatibility of the innovation with theexisting needs, values and experiences of thesocial system

3. Complexity: the extent to which aninnovation is perceived as difficult tounderstand or use

4. Trialability: the extent to which an innovation

may be tried out on a limited basis5. Observability: the extent to which the resultsof an innovation are visible

The Use-Diffusion Model (Shih and Venkatesh,2004) classifies users into 4 categories based on rateof use of the product and variety of uses it can be putto. They are:

1. Intense users: They exhibit high usage rateand also put the product to a variety of uses

2.

Specialised users: They exhibit high usagerate but use the product in a limited way3. Non-specialised users: They exhibit low

usage rate but try out the product for varietyof uses.

Limited users: They exhibit low usage rateand also limited variety of use and are on theverge of dis-adoption .

In order to adopt a product, users must have the

ability to cope with the uncertainty and risk associated with the outcome of using the product.Potential users should perceive higher value from

product usage as compared to competing products.For the adoption process to be self-sustaining, earlyadopters, who make up 25% of the total potentialusers, must adopt the product. They evaluate the

product and convey its benefits to other users.


5/23

(Rogers, 1995)

Response Hierarchy Models of Communication statethat in the cognitive stage, users become aware of the

product benefits and usage and develop an interest in

it. In the affective stage, they develop beliefs andattitudes towards the product and evaluate it. In the behavioural stage, they buy the product initially on alimited basis (trial) before fully adopting it if itsatisfies needs better than competing products.

The marketing environment plays an important rolein the adoption of a product. In the marketing of

products in rural India, Government intervention issignificant, as commercial organizations have not

been able to create an infrastructure to promote and

distribute a variety of products.

According to the Rural Marketing Model by Rao andTagat, (1985), in rural marketing, the word ruralconnot es anenvironment , in which marketingactivities take place. This context has technological,social, economic and political dimensions.Agriculture provides means of livelihood to majorityof rural India. Again majority of land holdings aresmall leading to a vicious circle of low productivity,low income, low savings and low investment.

Rao and Tagat suggest that since majority of ruralconsumers exhibit low income and low capacity toinvest, they have to initially be induced throughmarketing exposures by private and voluntaryorganisations and government not merely towards

purchase and consumption of goods and services butalso towards social processes. But this process of induced change puts rural consumers more in the roleof beneficiaries of pa tronage rather thanautonomous buyers .

The marketing of bio-fertilizers in India has beeninfluenced by a variety of factors, including

perceptions of farmers, Government intervention,and the difficulties in using the bio-fertilizer technology. Alam Ghayur (2000) presents thefindings of a field study, conducted in two districts,Karnal and Bhiwai, of Haryana, to find out causes, as


6/23

to why bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides are not beingadopted on a large scale. The study found that inspite of the Go vernment s efforts to promote bio -fertilizers, they have gained little acceptance from thefarmers. The problems of unavailability of bio-

fertilizers and their poor quality are linked. On theone hand, the State Agricultural Department andshopkeepers are unwilling to stock and sell bio-fertilizers as they feel that their quality is unreliable.On the other hand, the low demand for bio-fertilizershas prevented investment in advanced production andstorage facilities, which are required for improvingthe quality.

The study concludes that the present policy of providing grants and low interest loans to bio-

fertilizer producers should be abolished, as it has ledto setting up of a large number of inefficient plants,which cannot produce good quality bio-fertilizers. The policy of marketing bio-fertilizers atvery low prices should also be stopped, as these

prices are too low to attract modern investment inmodern manufacturing units. In addition to this,farmers feel that nothing so cheap can provide muchnutrition to the plants.

The storage and application of bio-fertilizers requires

special facilities and skills, which most producers,shopkeepers and farmers do not possess. It isimportant that greater research efforts should be putin developing bio-fertilizers that are easier to storeand apply.

The paper goes on to make a strong remark that bio-fertilizer production should be suspended until bio-fertilizers of improved quality can be made availablein adequate quantity. The present government policyof promoting bio-fertilizers without ensuring goodquality has actually harmed their cause, creating awide spread feeling among farmers and extensionworkers, that bio-fertilizers do not work.

PRODUCTION OFBIO-FERTILIZERS IN


7/23

INDIA:

Currently, there are about 114 producers of organicinputs and bio-fertilizers with an installed capacity of 18,500 tones. According to estimates of the NationalBio-fertilizer Development Center (NBDC) and theBio-Tech Consortium of India Ltd (BCIL) about344,800-507,032 tones of bio-fertilizers are requiredfor Indian agriculture. In reality, however, their useis limited.

Types of Bio-fertilizers:

There are four main types of bio-fertilizers Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Phosphate Solubilising bacteria (PSB) and Azospirillum. Rhizobium issuitable for leguminous crops such as pulses, oilseedsand fodder crops, Azotobactor for wheat, rice,vegetables and fruits, Azospirillum for rice andsugarcane and PSBs for all crops.

Certification and Quality Control:

The utility of bio-fertilizers has been validated by

reputed agencies in India (such as NBDC andICRISAT) and abroad. For instance field trials by NBDC have showed that application of azotobacter results in 3-25% increase in yield in cotton and 2-20% in wheat, in Haryana. But bio-fertilizer manufacturers find it difficult to consistentlyreplicate results of bio-fertilizer usage. This is

because agro-climatic conditions and soils aredifferent in different parts of the country. Manystrains do not survive in very hot temperatures. Bio-fertilizers are also prone to contamination if carriers

(such as powder/liquid) are not sterilized. If farmersdo not get consistent quality in bio-fertilizers itimpacts yield. This further reduces their trust andconsequently the purchase of bio-fertilizers. Qualitycontrol is an Achilles heel for many bio-fertilizer manufacturers as there is no standard process for isolating proper strain of microbes and also nostandard technology for scaling up and


8/23

fermentation. Moreover, bio-fertilizers are not achemical formula. So manufacturers have toindependently prove the merit of their product. Thisfurther increases marketing costs of bio-fertilizers.Also though Bio-fertilizers have to conform to BIS

standards there is no proper certification process in place.

THE CASE STUDIES:

BHARATIYA AGRO-INDUSTRIESFOUNDATION (BAIF)

General introduction:

Bharatiya Agro-industries Foundation (BAIF), now

renamed as BAIF Development ResearchFoundation, is a non-profit, non-political, professionally managed Public Charitable Trust,established in 1967.

Its mission is to create opportunities for gainful self-employment for the rural families, especiallydisadvantaged sectors, ensuring sustainablelivelihood, enriched environment, improved qualityof life, and good human values. (www.baif.org )

Its programmes cover around 20,00,000 people in45,000 villages in Maharashtra, Karnataka, AndhraPradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujrat, Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, andJharkhand, and covering around 20,00,000 families.The focus is on land development, improving skillsand knowledge of farmers, welfare of women andfamily and formation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) tocontinue developmental efforts.

Objectives:

BAIF concentrates mainly on social objectives, andnot just profits. Their focus is on low external inputagriculture, neglected crops, and development of wastelands and marginally productive lands. It aimsat providing livelihood support and to tries to makefarmers economically self-sufficient.
http://www.baif.org/http://www.baif.org/http://www.baif.org/http://www.baif.org/


9/23

Target Farmers:

The prime objective of BAIF is to work for thesubsistence, small and marginal farmers. Thesesegments are receptive to their interventions due to

low yield per acre, low income and poor standard of living.

Activities:

As mentioned earlier, BAIF provides completelivelihood support through the Livelihood SupportProgramme to the farmer, and his entire family. It

provides first inputs like neem cake, bone meal; then bio-fertilizers and then mixed fertilizers. Bio-fertilisers are thus a part of a package of inputs

provided to the farmers. The focus is on the creationof self-sustaining units, where production of inputs,utilization of family labour, and generation of incometakes place. The farmer, thus, gets income fromvarious sources like forestry, horticulture, grasslands,vermi-compost, and so on. Thus, a complete capacity

building activity is carried out. Along with theLivelihood Support Programme, BAIF also conductsthe Natural Resource Management Programme.

BAIF also conducts training programmes for NGOs,

bankers, field workers, project managers, and so on.

BAIF has also joined hands with the corporate sector,and is working with organizations like the Rourkelasteel plant, ONGC, etc. towards their corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) objectives. BAIF helps them inreaching out to people in rural areas.

BAIF withdraws from any given area after 8 yrs,leaving trained farmers to train others. The role thenchanges from implementation to facilitation. Its

activities basically revolve around 4 principles: Anna(Food ), akshar (Education ), arogya (Health) andacharan (Values).

Research:

BAIF has its own Central Research Station, where allresearch as well as production takes place. The


10/23

Central Research Station is recognized as a centre for pursuing certificate and degree courses in Agricultureand related topics of the Yashwantrao Chavan,Maharashtra Open University, Nasik. BAIF is also intouch with other research institutes. It has tied up

with IRDC for research in mycorhizzae. It hasformulated ideas for manufacturing at grassrootslevel, trying to grow the bacteria on the field with thehelp of simple methods like using shade nets.

BAIF is a Public Charitable Trust recognised as aResearch Institution by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India,University of Pune and South Gujarat University,Surat.

Funding:

BAIF gets finance from International Agencieslike the Canadian International DevelopmentAgency, IDRC, EU, etc, donors, patrons, various

bankers, and financial institutions.

Products:

BAIF manufactures 4 types of bio-fertilizers

Rhizobium, Azotobacter, PSB andMycorhizzae. Rhizobium is applied to roots or seeds; the rest may be applied to the soil. All the

bio-fertilisers are powder (lignite) based.

Transportation and Distribution:

Bio-fertilisers are transported in the night, tomaintain the temperature, especially in the hotsummer months. They are taken to their depots anddistributed directly to Government

departments. Rhizobium is distributed directly toZila Parishads and sold to farmers under the NationalOilseeds Development Programme and NationalPulses Development Programme wherein one packetis given to every farmer growing oilseeds and pulses.The other buyers include the farmers interested inorganic farming and those who want to experimentwith bio-fertilizers. BAIF addresses these largely


11/23

through its own extension programmes like theLivelihood Support Programme.

As bio-fertilizers are low in cost as compared tochemical fertilizers, farmers at times believe that they

may not be as effective. BAIF gives a package of inputs to farmers. When one input works well, bio-fertilizers are also seen positively.

Communication:

BAIF communicates with farmers mainly through achannel of field workers. Field workers stay withfarmers throughout a crop cycle and give farmers

inputs in terms of knowledge as well asmaterials. The experience of lead farmers and modelfarms are also used to communicate with the other farmers.

The prime objective of communication is to havemore and more people adopt their programmes,which include use of bio-fertilizer and relatedtechnology. However, the motive is social, noteconomic.

The media used are in the form of group discussionsthat the field workers conduct, pamphlets,demonstrations, and communicating the experiencesof lead farmers. BAIF also invites farmers to its bio-fertilizer production facility to orient them better with this product.

KUMAR KRISHI MITRA BIO-PRODUCTS (I) PVT. LTD (KKM):

.General Introduction:

Kumar Krishi Mitra Bio-products Pvt. Ltd. is a biotechnology company, which focuses on the use of beneficial microbes for environment friendlyagriculture. It was established in 1993, with an aim


12/23

of providing bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides for agriculture. It is a pioneer in the production of liquid

bio-inoculants.

It has an installed capacity of 3500 tones per

annum, which is currently the largest in India, and asales volume of around Rs. 3.5 crores. The companyinitially catered mainly to the export market, withalmost 80% sales in foreign markets, while just 20%in the domestic market. However, currently its

proportion of sales in the domestic and exportmarkets is 50:50. KKM has set up a full-scalefermentation plant, and is currently the largest andonly liquid bio-fertilizer producer in India.

Objectives:

KKM is a private sector company, which aims atenhanced profitability through increased sale of bio-fertilizers. It aims at providing safe inputs tofarmers, to increase soil productivity and yield. Itfocuses on research, discovering, cultivating, andmarketing safe and environmentally friendlymicrobial inputs for agriculture for domestic andforeign markets.

Target Farmers:

The company currently targets the farmers withirrigated land, out of which around 75-80% areengaged in horticulture. Revenues from this segmentamount to around Rs.1.5 crores. These are thefarmers who generally cater to the export market, andwhose produce is rejected if high chemical residuesare present. These farmers then serve as models for other farmers interested in bio-fertilizers and bio-

pesticides.

Research: The research, development, and testing is done

in-house, and new products are developed. Thecompany also gets third party testing done from other research institutes. These include NBDC, Ghaziabad,

NCL, Pune, and The International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),


13/23

Syria, Directorate of Agriculture, Maharashtra, Indiaand ISO certified national and internationallaboratories, amongst others.

It has also formulated a soil betterment technique

called KREF to correct soil salinity and act as acatalyst to increase soil organic matter and productivity. The company provides a kit to farmersfor this purpose.

The Managing Director of the company is a member of a Planning Commission panel and is workingtowards developing the bio-fertilizer industry and todevelop rural entrepreneurship and knowledgecenters for agriculture.

Products :

KKM manufactures a range of liquid bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides. Bioplin is a liquid bio-fertilizer for Nitrogen supplementation and containsnitrogen-fixing strains of Azotobacter. Phosfert is aliquid bio-fertilizer for Phosphorus supplementationand contains phosphate solubilising strains of azotobacter and bacillus polymyxa. Vitormone is aliquid bio-fertilizer for foliar application and containsgrowth-promoting strains of azotobacter.

Distribution:

KKM operates through its network of 40 distributorsand 500 dealers, in 6 states, viz., Maharashtra,Karnataka, Gujarat, Chhatisgarh, Tamil Nadu, andKerala. The motivation for the distributors anddealers is commercial margins. The marketing isdone through its own team of field officers, fieldmanagers, and marketing executives.

Communication: Extension workers of the company have to convincethe farmers about the technical efficacy of the

product through field trials and demonstrations.

The company has proposed knowledge centres for agriculture, which would also be an important


14/23

channel of communication. It has also set up trialfarms, which are kept for experimentation, and wherethe farmers can themselves see the processes andtechniques used and their effectiveness. Approximately two trial farms

amounting to 5-10 acres are set up for every 500acres.

The media used are pamphlets, brochures, audio-visual material, advertisements, demonstrations, andsetting up of trial/demo farms, dealer workshops anddiscussion forums. The company supplies inputs for the trial farms. The trial farms are meant todemonstrate beneficial effects of bio-fertilizers for different crops. For instance a trial farm for sugarcane would demonstrate increase in sugar

content by 0.51%, increase in yield by 10-15% andreduction of chemical fertiliser use by 25-30%. For grape cultivation a trial farm would demonstrate thatthe size of each grape increases with bio-fertilizer usage and also the grapes have uniform size. Boththese factors are important for grape export alongwith the fact that bio-fertilizers are residue free.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND

OBSERVATIONS:

Overview

For the past four decades or so farmers have beenusing chemical fertilizers as an important farm inputapart from seeds, farm implements, etc. For thefarmer, a fertilizer is a substance, which providesvital nutrients for plant growth. The primary nutrientsrequired for plant growth are nitrogen, phosphorusand potassium. Chemical fertilizers are chemicalcompounds, which provide these primary nutrientsand therefore have a fixed formula. Chemicalfertilizers are applied to soil in order to enrich it withrequired nutrients. Results of chemical fertilizer usage are easily and immediately visible in terms of increased yield per hectare. However, in the long run,


15/23

they show diminishing returns.

Our findings from interviews of farmers, dealers,extension workers, and officers, are as follows:

Lack of Awareness about Bio-fertilizers

Responses of Farmers

Awareness of farmers about bio-fertilizers is low.(See Table No. I). Farmers are confused about what a

bio-fertilizer really is and how it is different from notonly chemical fertilizers but also herbal extracts or organic compost. It was observed, that most of thefarmers could not distinguish between organicmanures and bio-fertilizers, often mixing up betweenthe two. This is because bio-fertilizers are added toslurry of cow dung or farm yard manure, and thenadded to the soil.

Some sample responses of farmers were: We use bio-fertilizers. We have cattle and the cow dung isused as bio- fertilizers. We use bio -fertilizers such as cow dung, vermi-compost, etc. Using bio -fertilizers such as vermi-compost, etc.leads to better growth in crops.

As a result of this farmers often perceive bio-fertilizers as being expensive as compared tochemical fertilizers. Organic manures are bulky innature and are required in large quantities, whichincrease their cost. Bio-fertilizers are not required insuch large quantities as organic manure. The cost per acre of bio-fertilizers is in fact much lesser thanchemical fertilizers. (See Table II)

Bio-fertilizer packs carry detailed instructions and precautions for storage and usage. In spite of this,usage methods are often not clear to farmers.

The empirical data showed that most farmers havenot done soil and water testing, and hence are notaware of the deficient nutrients in the soil (see table


16/23

III). They keep adding urea as it is cheap, whichoften leads to aggravating the problem of soilfertility.

Responses of Dealers:

Most of the dealers have their own farms and can besaid to be the agents of the diffusion process. Most of the dealers are educated in Agricultural Colleges, andhold a bachelor s or Master s degree in Agriculture.They work for profit margins, and gather informationfrom the producers regarding the usage of bio-fertilizers and recommend them to the farmers. Someof them also use bio-fertilizers on their own farms. Inmost cases, the farmers trust the dealers and use the

bio-fertilizers recommended by them. The dealersalso visit the farms and discuss the specific problem

with the farmers. It was also observed that thefarmers who said they were unaware of bio-fertilizerswere actually using them on the recommendation of dealers. Of the 11 farmers who said that they wereunaware of bio-fertilizers, 3 were using them on therecommendation of dealers. In most cases, it wasobserved, that the farmers completely trust thedealers, who recommend the use of certain bio-fertilizers and pesticides.

However, there is another type of dealers, who do not

recommend or suggest anything, and only sell whatthe farmers demand. The sale of bio-fertilizers insuch cases is extremely low, almost negligible, asgenerally, farmers do not buy bio-fertilizers of their own accord.

Responses of Officers and Extension Workers:As product awareness itself is low, brand awarenessis non-existent. The extension workers try to createawareness about the use of bio-fertilizers. They visitfarms, give demonstrations and also recommend theuse of bio-fertilizers. They work along with thedealers, as the dealers have first hand informationabout the farmers. A field assistant visits 10 farmersa day, and each farmer, three times a month. A salesofficer visits 5 farmers per day, and each farmer twice a month.


17/23

Difficulty in Understanding and Usage:

Responses of Farmers:Farmers want a product that is easy to use. Thesedays, bio-fertilizers come in two varieties powder

(lignite/talc) based and liquid bio-fertilizers. Theymay be applied to seed and seedlings, root, foliage aswell as soil. This is often difficult for farmers toaccept and understand. Bio-fertilizers usage is notcompatible with current farming practices. 4 out of 15 farmers feel that bio-fertilizers are difficult tounderstand and use.

Dealers:3 out of 5 feel that usage of bio-fertilizers needs to bedemonstrated and continuous follow-up is necessary

to reinforce understanding of the product.

Responses of Officers and Extension workers:The officers and extension workers agree thatdemonstrations and follow-ups are necessary, butthey lack adequate manpower.

Lack of Availability

Responses of Farmers:Bio-fertilizers are distributed through the Gram

Panchayats . However, 3 out of 4 farmers who arecurrently using bio-fertilizers say that they are notavailable through the Gram Panchayat. Thegovernment sells bio-fertilizers at subsidized rates tofarmers through its own distribution mechanismconsisting of Block Development Officers, Taluka

Krishi Adhikaris, Gram Sevaks and other types of extension workers who promote the Integrated

Nutrient Management Programme. Bio-fertilizersare also available through the dealer network, butvery few dealers stock bio-fertilizers.

Some sample responses are: Packets of bio -fertilizers only reach Panchayat Samiti members.Ordinary farmers do not get them. There is only 1 Gram Sevak for 5 villages.Therefore, information and packets of bio-fertilizersdo not reach us.

The farmers do feel that bio-fertilizers are beneficial


18/23

and should be used. According to them, using bio-fertilizers is the need of the hour, and a must if long-term soil fertility is to be maintained. However, lack of availability emerged as a deterrent.

Responses of dealers:2 out of 5 dealers do not stock bio-fertilizers, as thereis no demand. They are also difficult to store andtransport. Thus, it becomes a vicious circle of lowdemand and lack of availability.

Responses of Officers and Extension workers:According to the officers and extension workers,dealers are not interested in promoting bio-fertilizers,as it needs demonstration and follow up. The dealersfeel that it costs them in terms of time and money.

This is despite the fact, that bio-fertilizer manufacturers give higher margins (25%) ascompared to chemical fertilizer manufacturers (5-10%).

Results are not immediately seen:

Responses of Farmers:Results of bio-fertilizer usage are not immediatelyapparent and not easily attributable. 3 out of 4farmers, who were aware of bio-fertilizers, feel that

results are slow. Farmers classify results of bio-fertilizer usage under 3 heads: increase in soilfertility, increase in yield, and improvement inquality of produce. Without an exception, all farmersfeel that results of bio-fertilizer usage are slow.Sample Response (soil fertility): Bio -fertilizer usageenhances soil fertility, but results of these are seenonly after 2- 3 years. Sample Response (yield): Yield of sugarcane wentup from 35 tones to 60 tones over time. (Landholding30 acres)

Sample Response (quality of produce): Quality of figs has improved over time.

Responses of Dealers:According to the dealers, farmers are reluctant inusing bio-fertilizers as they feel that the result isslow. Hence, they do not invest in bio-fertilizers,


19/23

which leads to low demand.

Responses of Officers and Extension Workers:The manufacturers of bio-fertilizers have not beenable to adequately demonstrate benefits of bio-

fertilizer usage. When farmers use chemicalfertilizers, they see immediate observable results(field turns green after use of Urea). However, theimpact of bio-fertilizer usage on yield or quality of

produce is seen only at the end of the crop cycle.Impact on soil fertility can be seen only if frequentsoil testing is done. Even if yield and qualityimproves, farmers do not attribute it to bio-fertilizer usage.

Usage of Bio-fertilizers

Without exception, all dealers and extension workersreport that bio-fertilizer usage is greater in cash cropsvegetables, fruits and agricultural produce which isexported (grape, flowers, etc.). This is because pricesare fixed according to the quality of produce (sugar content in sugarcane, size of fruit, etc,). In the case of exports, they are used because importing countrieshave strict norms regarding chemical residues.

Role of the Government :

Responses of Farmers:Without exception, all farmers said that they have notgot any information about bio-fertilizers fromGovernment agencies, like Gram Sevaks and

Panchayat Samitis .

Response of Officers and Extension Workers:Prices of bio-fertilizers, sold through Governmentchannels are lower than chemical fertilizers andfarmers find it difficult to trust their efficacy. The

farmer wonders why a farm input needs so much careand comes to the conclusion that this is a poor quality product with no utility. On the other hand because of this negative perception private bio-fertilizer manufacturers are unable to sell their products at ahigher price. To add to t he farmers woes, bio -fertilizer manufacturing companies mushroom andvanish frequently and therefore trust in this product


20/23

diminishes. At times, they also supply products of poor quality.

DISCUSSION:

It is evident that the adoption of bio-fertilizers has been low, as it is complex to understand, is notcompatible with current farming practices, andresults of usage are not easily observable.Members of a social system readily understand someinnovations; others are more complicated and will beadopted more slowly (Rogers, 1995). Chemicalfertilizers belong to the former category, while bio-fertilizers fall in the latter. The processes andfunctions that bio-fertilizers perform are not easilyunderstood. In addition to this, they cannot be used

and stored as easily as chemicals. This has been themajor deterrent in the adoption process.

KKM has addressed the problem of complexity by producing liquid bio-fertilizers, which are more easyto use as compared to powder based ones. The

proposed establishment of knowledge centers wouldalso go a long way in increasing the awareness about

bio-fertilizers. BAIF promotes the use of complimentary techniques and provides of input kits,so that use becomes easier.

To address the issue of trialibility and observability(Rogers, 1995) of the new technology, KKM has setup field trials on tracts of land for which inputs aresponsored by them and also set up model farms,while BAIF has provided knowledge and materialinputs through its Livelihood SupportProgramme. This has enhanced the diffusion

process.

KKM has set up field trials and demonstrations, with

the help of dealers. BAIF has gone so far as trainingfarmers and changing their own role over time, fromimplementation to facilitation, through theLivelihood Support Programme. This was with theintention of generating lead farmers, who would theninfluence other farmers and enhance the process of adoption. However, it was found out that, at times thelead farmer ideology fails, as there is often


21/23


22/23

technology. It also supported chemical agriculturewith other mechanisms like the minimum support

price and procurement price and subsidies. Fertilizer subsidy is the difference between net realization byfertilizer manufacturer (farmer s price -distribution

margin) and the ex-factory retention price fixed bythe government. This was one of the prime reasonswhy diffusion of the chemical agriculture technologytook place, during the Green Revolution of the1960s.

As against this, little has been done to promote the bio-fertilizer industry in terms of policy support. TheGovernment started the National Project on theDevelopment and Use of Bio-fertilizers during the6th plan. Financial assistance is given in the form of

a non-recurring grant-in-aid up to Rs 20 lakhs for setting up bio-fertilizer production units of 150metric tones capacity. However, this support isnegligible as compared to the quantum and durationof support given to chemical agriculture. It has alsogiven rise to inefficient manufacturers whomanufacture poor quality of bio-fertilizers.

Rural consumer behaviour for consumer productsand farm inputs is vastly different. Governmentintervention efforts for sale of farm inputs in the past

decades has led to farmers thinking of themselves asbeneficiaries rather than autonomous buyers .Indeed, this is how sale of chemical fertilisers wasincreased in the past.

Government inputs are also required in terms of research and development and a proper system for certification of bio-fertilizers.

CONCLUSIONS:

It may be said that government as an entity is notmerely an important factor in the environment in therural marketing context but also a catalyst for the

process of adoption of a product.

A robust certification process endorsed by thegovernment and reputed international agencies wouldenhance the adoption of this technology as only


23/23

quality manufacturers will survive and the image of this product will improve.

Bio-fertilizer manufacturers need to addresssegments where adoption can be hastened, such as

cash crops, fruits and vegetables and export orientedcrops. The communication should focus oncommercial advantages of adopting this technology,(such as improvement in quality of produce leadingto better prices, lesser residues leading to greater acceptance in export markets) rather than anenvironmental one (soil fertility and preserving the

biosphere).

Bio-fertilizers, as a product category, need to createan identity that is distinct from organic fertilizers.

Bio-fertilizer manufacturers need to make the product simpler to use, to increase its adoption.

Currently, there are small and medium enterprises producing bio-fertilizers. They do not have adequateresources for extension activities. There is a case for large-scale enterprises to enter manufacturing of bio-fertilizers, which would lead to economies of scaleand make available resources for extension activities.This would solve the problem of availability,awareness and quality.

Documents

marketing of biofertilizers