ECONOMICS OF NON-OIL VALUE CHAINS IN PEANUT: A CASE OF PEANUT-CANDYAND SALTED-PEANUT
SMALL-SCALE UNITS IN INDIA
Gurrappanaidu Govindaraj* and Vimal K. Jain
Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Post Box No. 5, Junagadh-362001, Gujarat, India
Abstract: This study was conducted to assess the extent of value-addition,
employment generating potential and economics of peanut-candy and salted-peanut small-scale units in India. In the low-capacity peanut-candy units, the value-addition at the end of Stage-I (pod to kernel) was $ 2.4/q, whereas, it was $ 2.2/q in the high-capacity units. In salted-peanut units, the value-addition in the low- and high-capacity was $2.2/q and $2.3/q, respectively. In Stage-II (kernel to final product), the value-addition was high across sizes and type of the processing units. Around 525 and 635 man-days of employment/month/unit were generated by low and high-capacity peanut-candy units, respectively. The employment generation was less in salted-peanut vis-à-vis peanut-candy units due to different processing methods. The kernel alone constituted 50 to 52 per cent of the total cost in peanut-candy, and 89 per cent in salted-peanut units. The sensitivity analysis revealed that change in the kernel price directly affected the magnitude of profits. The important policy implications emerged were: if the units process the pods to obtain kernel (Stage-I) instead of procuring kernels from the market, considerable value-addition can be made, kernel price directly affects the profits and hence an appropriate mechanism like ‘contract farming’ would stabilise the kernel prices, majority of the units retrench labour during off-peak period due to less demand and hence diversification in processing will generate sufficient employment to retain the existing skilled employees, and appropriate policy intervention is necessary to address the capital, technology and marketing constraints of the peanut processing units.
Key words: peanut-candy, salted-peanut, value-addition, economic analysis,
sensitivity analysis.
Introduction
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an important leguminous oilseed crop grown in India. It occupies an area of 5.2 million ha with productivity of around 1,180 kg/ha (2008-09). It is grown in semi-arid regions of India, especially, in the
*
states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Gopalan et al. (1996) and Basu and Singh (2004) stated that the peanut kernel contains on an average 25-29% protein, 47-50% oil, 3% fibre and other essential vitamins, minerals and amino acids. The peanut is directly consumed as raw nut or in processed form developed through different value chains. Humphrey and Schmitz (2001) pointed that the value chain in any crop includes a range of activities that are required to bring a crop product from its conception, sourced raw materials and intermediate inputs, its marketing and distribution to the final consumer. Kaplinsky and Morris (2003) stated that value chain incorporates production, transportation, transformation, processing, marketing, and consumption of a given product or service. Value chain analysis helps in understanding and evaluating the value-addition, income distribution and other benefits like employment generation.
The consumption demand of peanut-candy and salted-peanut in India is met mainly through the small-scale units and only small portion of the demand is met through the established, large and branded units. The quantitative studies related to the economics of small-scale units are limited in literature. Hence, the present study was conducted with the objectives of understanding the value-addition at different stages, employment generation potential, investment pattern, and cost and returns of peanut-candy and salted-peanut units.
Materials and Methods
In India, Gujarat State is the largest producer (the highest production) and highest table peanut processing (800 units) with about 70% of market share and hence it was selected for the present study. Reddy (1988) reported that among the different districts of Gujarat, five districts viz., Junagadh, Rajkot, Jamnagar, Bhavnagar, and Amreli in Saurashtra region are called as ‘peanut bowl’ of India. Among these districts, Junagadh District occupies 22 per cent of the area (0.4 million ha) and 33 per cent of peanut production (0.7 million tonnes) in Gujarat State and hence it was selected for the study. Two urban centres in Junagadh district viz., Junagadh and Keshod were randomly selected to assess the economics of peanut processing units. Since the published data on the number of peanut-candy and salted-peanut units that operate in these selected urban centres were not available, a snowballing technique was followed to identify the majority of the small-scale units. Accordingly, thirty-one salted-peanut and twenty-six peanut-candy small-scale units operating in these urban centres were identified and surveyed using the pre-tested questionnaire during the year 2007. The median processing level of the units (i.e. 302 kg/day/unit) was considered as a cut-off for classifying the low- and high-capacity units. Economic indicators like gross return, net return were calculated for peanut processingunits as follows: GR = Q*P, where GR = Gross returns; Q = Quantity of the processed product; P = Selling price of the product; NR = GR-TVC, where NR = Net returns; GR = Gross returns; TVC = Total variable cost.
The ‘t’ test was used to test the significant differences in employment generation across the sizes of the units. The pooled analysis for peak and off-peak employment generation, and pooled analysis for the low and high-capacity units for capital investment and cost and returns were also analysed. The value-addition at Stage-I (pods to kernel) and Stage-II (kernel to final product) was calculated as follows.
Stage-I
Stage-II
Separate formulae were used for peanut-candy and salted-peanut units since in peanut-candy units 0.5 q of peanut kernel is used to obtain 1 q of processed product.
Salted-peanut units:
Value-addition ($/q) = Sale price of final product ($/q)-[purchase price of kernel ($/q) + processing cost ($/q)].
Peanut-candy units:
Value-addition ($/q) = Sale price of final product ($/q)-[purchase price of kernel ($/0.5 q) + processing cost per quintal of final product ($)].
Results and Discussion
The major commercial non-oil small-scale peanut processing units in India are peanut-candy andsalted-peanut. In peanut-candy making, the kernels are roasted, blanched, split and mixed with additives like jaggery (unrefined whole cane sugar) and glucose in appropriate quantities. This mixture was spread in trays, cut into different shapes using cutter, shade dried and packed in appropriate sizes. The salted-peanut is prepared by roasting the brine pre-soaked kernels, and adding colouring agents and additives in right proportion. The final product is then shade dried and packed suitably.
The majority of the peanut-candy and salted-peanut units procure kernels from the local government marketing yard for processing. The salted units use bold size kernels (>60 g/100 kernels), whereas, the peanut-candy units use medium/small size kernels (30-40 g/100 kernels). The prices of kernels used by the salted units are higher than the peanut-candy units due to differences in quality of raw material used by these units. The different stages (Stages I and II) in the development of peanut-candy and saltedproducts are presented in Table 1. In each stage, some value-addition takes place until the final peanut-candy/salted-peanut is developed. The details of value-addition ($) at different stages of the value chain are discussed in the later part of the paper.
Seasonal pattern of demand
peak period and low production during the off-peak period. The variations in demand for the peanut-candyand salted-peanutin the study area are mainly due to the climatic and cultural factors. During the off-peak period (summer season) there is less consumption demand of peanut-candy and salted-peanut, mainly due to high temperature induced indigestion problems. Moreover, the closure of schools and colleges during summer season (March-May) reduces the demand for these value-added products.
Table1. Different stages in peanut-candy and salted-peanut preparation.
Unit Stage-I Stage-II
Peanut-candy units
Peanut pods
Decortication
Kernel (small size/broken/splits)
Kernel (small size/broken/splits)
Processing
Peanut-candy
Salted units
Peanut pods
Decortication
Kernel (bold size)
Kernel (bold size)
Processing
Peanut-candy
During the rainy and winter months (peak period), the demand for these products is high due to the use of fresh inputs (peanut and jaggery) in peanut-candy production and also due to local belief that the peanut-candy and salted-peanut consumption is good for health during these months.
Employment generation
The employment generation varied across the peanut processing units significantly and the details are discussed separately here under.
Peanut-candy units
In the peak period (June-February), the high-capacity peanut-candy unit employed 525 man-days per month. Around 86 per cent (450 man-days) of the labour demand of these units was met through hired labour and 14% (75 man-days) through family labour. During the off-peak period, the high-capacity units employed around 110 man-days per month the majority of them (82%) were hired labour. The pooled results indicated that an average of 635 man-days was employed per month by every high-capacity peanut-candy unit and the majority of them were hired labour (85%).
Table 2. Employment generation in peanut-candy unit (man-days/month/unit).
Size (June-February) Peak periods Off-peak periods (March-May) Pooled
Low-capacity units
HL FL AL HL FL AL HL FL AL 308
(76.2) 96 (23.7)
404 (100)
88 (72.7)
33 (27.2)
121 (100)
396 (75.4)
129 (24.5)
525 (1(100)
High-capacity units
HL FL AL HL FL AL HL FL AL 450
(85.7) 75 (14.3)
525 (100)
90 (81.8 )
20 (18.2)
110 (100)
540 (85.0)
95 (15.0)
635 (100)
t-test *** * ***
HL-Hired labour; FL-Family labour; AL-Average Labour; Figures in parentheses indicate per cent to total; ***, ** and * represents 1.5 and 10% significance levels respectively.
Hence, it can be concluded that the peanut-candy processing generates more employment especially during the peak period. Irrespective of the size/capacity, the labour needs of these units are met through hired labour since skilled labour is a pre-requisite in peanut-candy processing. There were significant differences in the percentage of labour participation across the sizes and different periods of the year.
Salted-peanut units
The man-days employed in salted-peanut unit varied across different periods. During the peak period, an average of 219 man-days was employed per month by low-capacity salted-peanut unit, of which, 60% (131 man-days) was hired labour and 40% (88 man-days) was family labour. In the off-peak period, an average of 68 man-days per month was employed by the low-capacity salted-peanut unit. Nearly 56% (38 man-days) of the labour employed in the salted-peanut unit during off-peak was hired and 44% (30 man-days) was family labour. The pooled results indicated that on an average of 287 man-days was employed by every low-capacity salted-peanut unit and the majority among them were hired labour.
labour. In the off-peak period, 83 man-days were employed per month, of which, 54% (45 man-days) was through hired labour and 46% (38 man-days) by family labour. The pooled results indicated that on an average 398 man-days were employed per month by high-capacity salted-peanut unit and the majority of them were hired labour (64%). There were significant differences in the percentage of labour participation across the sizes and different periods of the year. It can be concluded that the salted-peanut unit is a high employment generating unit like the peanut-candy unit. However, a perusal of Tables 2 and 3 revealed that the employment generating potential of peanut-candy unit was higher than the salted-peanut unit irrespective of capacity and across different periods. It was mainly attributed to different processing procedure involved in peanut-candy production. Moreover, the packing of peanut-candy was in small sizes and it needed more labour than the salted-peanut units. The skilled labour requirement was a necessity in peanut-candy processing and hence the hired labour component was higher in peanut-candy vis-a-vis salted-peanut unit.
Table 3. Employment generation in salted-peanut unit (man-days/month/unit).
Size Peak periods (June-February)
Off-peak periods
(March-May) Pooled
Low-capacity units
HL FL AL HL FL AL HL FL AL 131
(59.8) 88 (40.2)
219 (100)
38 (55.8)
30 (44.2)
68 (100)
169 (58.8)
118 (41.2)
287 (100)
High-capacity units
HL FL AL HL FL AL HL FL AL 206
(65.3) 109 (34.7)
315 (100)
45 (54.2 )
38 (45.8)
83 (100)
251 (63.8)
147 (36.2)
398 (100)
t-test *** ** ***
HL-Hired labour; FL-Family labour; AL-Average Labour; Figures in parentheses indicate per cent to total; ***, ** and * represents 1.5 and 10% significance levels respectively.
exports. But the penetration of these policies to peanut processing units is rather slow and inadequate. Hence, there is an urgent necessity to address the capital, technology and marketing constraints perceived by the peanut processing units through appropriate policy.
Investment pattern of peanut-candy units
The break-up of capital investment is presented in Table 4. The capital investment varied positively with the size (processing capacity) of the units. Table 4. Capital investment in peanut-candy units ($/unit).
Assets Cost
Low-capacity High-capacity Pooled
Buildings/shed 2,449.7
(67.4)
4,289.4 (49.4)
3,369.5 (54.7) Construction of oven
platforms, and floor
279.7 (7.7)
569.6 (6.6)
424.7 (6.9)
Machineries 638.9
(17.6)
970.9 (11.2)
804.9 (13.1) Tray/plates/cutter/roller
(accessories)
213.0 (5.9)
2,793.3 (32.2)
1,503.1 (24.4)
Weighing balance 55.6
(1.5)
55.6 (0.6)
55.6 (0.9)
Total 3,636.9
(100)
8,678.8 (100)
6,157.8 (100) Figures in parentheses indicate percentage ofrespective total.
The total capital investment in low-capacity peanut-candy units was $ 2,449.7, whereas, it was $ 4,289.4 in the high-capacity units. The share of buildings/shed was substantial and accounted for 67% and 49% of the total capital investment in low- and high-capacity units, respectively. In low-capacity peanut-candy units, the second major investment was in machineries and accounted for 18% of total capital investment. In high-capacity units, the second major investment (32%) was in accessories like tray, plates, cutter and roller. The pooled analysis revealed that in peanut-candy units, the major capital investment was in buildings and shed (55%) followed by accessories (24%).
Investment pattern of salted-peanut units
80% of total capital investment in high-capacity salted units, and 75% in low-capacity units. The second major capital investment was machineries in both the high- and low-capacity units. The pooled analysis revealed that in salted-peanut units, the major investment was in buildings and shed (78%) followed by machineries (9%).
Table 5. Capital investment in salted-peanut units ($ /unit).
Assets Cost
Low-capacity High-capacity Pooled
Shed 1,345.0
(75.4)
3,226.8 (79.9)
2,223.2 (78.4)
Construction of drying floor 113.1 (6.3)
230.6 (5.7)
167.9 (5.9)
Oven 23.2
(1.3)
78.0 (1.9)
48.8 (1.7)
Machineries 186.1
(10.4)
347.2 (8.6)
261.3 (9.2)
Weighing balance 55.6
(3.1)
55.6 (1.4)
55.6 (2.0)
Utensils 59.6
(3.3)
101.5 (2.5)
79.2 (2.8)
Total value 1,782.6
(100)
4,039.7 (100)
2,835.9 (100) Figures in parentheses indicate percentage of respective total.
A perusal of the capital investment in peanut-candy and salted-peanut units (Tables 4 and 5) revealed that the investment in buildings and shed was the highest in both cases since these products are to be processed and packed under minimal moisture conditions. Hence, the concrete shed is a pre-requisite to avoid contamination and spoilage of the processed end product as well as the raw materials. Thus, a high investment in the construction of shed was observed in both of these products. The investment in peanut-candy units was higher vis-à-vis salted-peanut units since peanut-candy processing needs sophisticated procedure, whereas salted-peanut is prepared by a simple procedure.
Cost and returns structure of peanut-candy units
size of the peanut-candy units, the kernel constituted the major cost and thus any variation in kernel price would directly affect the cost and returns. Table 6. Economics of low and high-capacity peanut-candy units ($ /month/unit).
Variables Low-capacity High-capacity Pooled
Fixed cost
Rent for building 95.8
(2.4)
130.9 (1.3)
113.4 (1.6) Depreciation cost of
machines/utensils 23.3 (0.6) 36.9 (0.4) 30.1 (0.4)
Interest on fixed capital (13 %) 37.8 (1.0)
52.9 (0.5)
45.3 (0.7)
Total fixed cost (1) 157.0 (4.0) 220.7 (2.2) 188.8 (2.7) Variable cost
Kernel ($ 0.71/kg) 2,000.0 (50.6)
5,244.4 (52.8)
3,622.2 (52.2)
Additives 806.2
(20.4)
2,114.2 (21.3)
1,460.2 (21.0)
Fuel + electricity 146.1 (3.7)
349.6 (3.5)
247.9 (3.6)
Packaging + labour 822.5 (20.8)
1,940.4 (19.5)
1,381.5 (19.9)
Transportation 20.0
(0.5)
65.6 (0.7)
42.8 (0.6)
Total variable cost (2) 3,794.9 (96.0)
9,714.2 (97.8)
6,754.6 (97.3)
Total cost (1+2) 3,951.8
(100)
9,935.0 (100)
6,943.4 (100)
Total returns 4,250.0 11,144.4 7,697.2
Net returns /month/unit 298.1 1,209.5 753.8
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage of respective total.
The low-capacity unit generated a net income of $ 298.1 per month, whereas the capacity unit generated a net income of $ 1,209.5 per month. The high-capacity units generate more income compared to low-high-capacity units due to more processing volume per month.
Cost and returns structure of salted-peanut units
the major cost in salted-peanut units was variable cost (99%). Among the variable cost, the raw material (kernel) cost alone constitutes 89% of the total cost. It was Table 7. Economics of low-and high-capacity salted-peanut units ($ /month/unit).
Variables Low-capacity High-capacity Pooled
Fixed cost
Rent for building 32.2
(0.8)
99.1 (0.9)
63.4 (0.9)
Depreciation of machines/utensils 8.6 (0.2)
10.2 (0.1)
9.4 (0.1)
Interest on fixed capital 18.8 (0.5)
33.7 (0.3)
25.8 (0.4)
Total fixed cost (1) 59.7
(1.5) 143.0 (1.3) 98.5 (1.4) Variable cost
Kernel ($ 0.78/kg) 3,548.2 (89.1)
9,722.2 (88.6)
6,429.4 (88.8)
Additives 101.4
(2.5)
277.8 (2.5)
183.7 (2.5)
Fuel + electricity 88.7
(2.2)
243.0 (2.2)
160.7 (2.2)
Packaging + labour 131.8
(3.3)
527.8 (4.8)
316.6 (4.4)
Transportation 20.3
(0.5)
55.6 (0.5)
36.7 (0.5)
Total variable cost (2) 3,923.0 (98.5)
10,826.4 (98.7)
7,144.6 (98.6)
Total cost (1 + 2) 3,982.7 (100)
10,969.3 (100)
7,243.1 (100)
Total returns 5,068.9 13,888.9 9,184.9
Net returns /month 1,086.2 2,919.6 1,941.8
Figures in parentheses indicate percentage of respective total.
mainly due to fewer inputs required for processing salted-peanut unlike peanut-candy. Moreover, using a simple procedure, the salted-peanut is processed and hence the packaging and labour cost is less in salted-peanut vis-à-vis peanut-candy. The low-and high-capacity salted-peanut unit generated a net income of $ 1,086.2 and $ 2,919.6 per month, respectively. The high-capacity units generated more income compared to low-capacity units due to more processing volume per month.
Simulated economic gains of peanut-candy and salted-peanut units for changes in kernel price
size of the processing units and hence any change in the kernel price would affect the profits of the processing units. The kernel price and variable cost were positively related, whereas they were inversely related to profitability of the units. The kernel prices are linked to the peanut crop production pattern.
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Scenario I ($ 0.62/kg)
Scenario II ($ 0.71/kg)
Scenario III ($ 0.78/kg)
$/
m
ont
h/
uni
t
Total cost Total returns Net return
Figure1. Simulated economic gains of low-capacity peanut-candy units for changes in kernel price.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Scenario I ($ 0.62/kg)
Scenario II ($ 0.71/kg)
Scenario III ($ 0.78/kg)
$/
m
ont
h/
un
it
Total cost Total returns Net return
Figure 2. Simulated economic gains of high-capacity peanut-candy units for changes in kernel price.
profits, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to study the profitability of peanut-candy and salted-peanut units for the changes in kernel prices. The prices considered for sensitivity analysis were based on the existing price (Scenario-II), maximum expected fall I) and maximum expected increase (Scenario-III) in prices perceived by the units during the survey year. It was observed from Figures 1 and 2 that in low-capacity peanut-candy units, as kernel price fall from Scenario-II ($ 0.71/kg) to Scenario-I ($ 0.62/kg), the net returns that would be generated per unit per month increase from $ 298.1 to $ 548.1. If price of kernel rises to Scenario-III ($ 0.78/kg), the net returns slip down to $ 173.1 per unit per month. A similar trend in net returns for changes in kernel prices was observed among the high-capacity peanut-candy units.
The existing price of kernel used in salted-peanut units was $ 0.78/kg of kernel (Scenario-II), the maximum expected fall price was $ 0.67/kg and maximum expected price rise was $0.89/kg. It was observed from Figures 3 and 4 that as
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Scenario I ($ 0.67/kg)
Scenario II ($ 0.78/kg)
Scenario III ($ 0.89/kg)
$/
m
ont
h/
un
it
Total cost Total returns Net return
Figure 3. Simulated economic gains of low-capacity salted-peanut units for changes in kernel price.
transmitting the increased cost (kernel cost) burden to consumers, the peanut-candy and salted-peanut units absorb themselves and reduce their profit margins.
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Scenario I ($ 0.67/kg)
Scenario II ($ 0.78/kg)
Scenario III ($ 0.89/kg)
$/
m
o
nt
h/
u
ni
t
Total cost Total returns Net return
Figure 4. Simulated economic gains of high-capacity salted-peanut units for changes in kernel price.
This reduced profit does not affect existence of peanut-candy/salted-peanut units since the off-peak period (March-June) lasts only for a short period. However, the retrenchment of labour increased during the off-peak period (March-June) to offset the fall in demand. Hence, we can conclude that to stabilise the income and to circumvent a disengaging of the existing skilled labour, the processing units should diversify the production portfolio (peanut butter or HPS peanut) instead of specialising in one product.
Value-addition at different stages of peanut-candy and salted-peanut units
unit processes 1,000 kg/day or 30,000 kg/month the value-addition will be 10 times or 300 times). Hence, some of the small-scale units (peanut-candy and salted-peanut) which now purchase the kernel directly from the marketing yard could purchase pods and process them to generate more value-addition and profits.
Table 8. Value-addition in Stage-I (pod to kernel) of peanut-candy and salted-peanut processing ($/quintal).
Units
Purchase price of pods
Decorti cation
cost
Total cost of pod
Total cost
of kernel*
Average kernel price(if purchased
from market)
Value- addition
after decortication
Sale price of
peanut shell
Total value-addition
Peanut-candy units
Low-capacity 42.7 1.3 44.0 62.9 64.9 2.0 0.3 2.4 High-capacity 43.4 1.3 44.7 63.8 65.7 1.9 0.3 2.2
Pooled 43.0 1.3 44.4 63.4 65.3 2.0 0.3 2.3
Salted-peanut units
Low-capacity 49.1 1.3 51.2 73.2 75.1 1.9 0.3 2.2 High-capacity 49.2 1.3 51.4 73.4 75.4 2.0 0.3 2.3
Pooled 49.2 1.3 50.5 73.3 75.2 2.0 0.3 2.3
*
1 quintal of peanut pod = 70 kg of kernel.
Table 9. Value-addition in Stage-II (kernel to final product) of peanut-candy and salted-peanut processing ($/quintal).
Units
Market kernel price
(A)
Processing cost (B)*
Total cost of processed product
(C = 0.5A+B)
Sale price of final product
(D)
Value- addition
(D-A) Peanut-candy units
Low-capacity 64.9 36.2 68.7 75.6 6.9
High-capacity 65.7 38.2 71.1 75.6 4.5
Pooled 65.3 37.2 69.8 75.6 5.7
Salted-peanut units
Low-capacity 75.1 9.5 84.6 111.1 26.5
High-capacity 75.4 10.0 85.4 111.1 25.8
Pooled 75.2 9.8 85.1 111.1 26.0
*Includes all cost in processing except kernel cost.
whereas it was $ 25.8/q by the high-capacity units (Table 9). The pooled results revealed that the average value-addition among the salted-peanut units was $ 26.0/q. Unlike the peanut-candy units, there was no considerable difference in the value-addition considering the size of the salted units and it was mainly due to high family labour participation both in low- and high-capacity salted units. Moreover, the necessity of skilled labour (hired labour) for processing was less in the salted-peanut vis-à-vis salted-peanut-candy preparations.
Conclusion
marketing constraints perceived by the peanut processing units could be addressed through appropriate policy favouring food processing in general and peanut processing units in particular.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR) for funding the Project.
References
Basu, M.S., Singh, N.B. (2004): Groundnut research in India. National Research Centre for Groundnut (NRCG), Junagadh, India.
Coelli, T., Battese, G. (1996): Identification of factors which influence the technical inefficiency of Indian farmers. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 40(2):103-128.
Dave, N. (2011): More peanut in the bowl than in oil mills. The Times of India, 10 May. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/ahmedabad/29527482_1_oil-mills-groundnut-prices-edible-oil.
Dhamsaniya, N.K., Patel, N.C. (2004). Sensory quality of peanut butter as influenced by salt concentration. Proceedings of national symposium on enhancing productivity of peanut for sustaining food and nutritional security. Junagadh, India, pp. 200-202.
Gopalan, C., Ramasastri, B.V., Balasubramanian, S.C. (1996): Nutritive value of Indian foods. National Institute of Nutrition (NIN). Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Hyderabad, India.
Govindaraj, G. (2010): Dynamics of edible oils in Tamil Nadu-an econometric analysis. PhD thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.
Goyal, S.K. (1993): Policies towards development of agro-industries in India, working paper. Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi, 35 pp.
Humphrey, J., Schmitz, H. (2001): Governance in global value chains. IDS Bulletin, Sussex, U.K. Kaplinsky, R., Morris, M. (2003): A hand book for value chain research. IDRC.
http://www.eldis.org/static/Doc11836.htm.
Raj, X.S. (2008): An economic analysis of mango pulp agro based industry in Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu. Political Economy Journal of India, January-June. http://findarticles. com/ p/articles/mi_7058/is_1-2_17/ai_n28556196/?tag=content;col1.
Reddy, P.S., (1988): Genetics, breeding and varieties. In: Reddy, P.S. (Ed.), Groundnut. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Kirshi, Pusa, New Delhi, pp: 200-317.
Savalia, R.L., Vaghasia, P.M., Kelaiya, G.R. (2004): Potential for value-addition in groundnut. Proceedings of national symposium on enhancing productivity of peanut for sustaining food and nutritional security. Junagadh, India, pp. 202-204.
EKONOMIKA NEULJANIH LANACA VREDNOSTI KOD KIKIRIKIJA: SLUČAJ MALIH PROIZVODNIH JEDINICA ZA PROIZVODNJU
BOMBONA SA KIKIRIKIJEM I SLANOG KIKIRIKIJA U INDIJI
Gurrappanaidu Govindaraj* i Vimal K. Jain
Direkcija za istraživanje kikirikija (DGR), Post Box No. 5, Junagadh-362001, Gujarat, Indija
R e z i m e
Ova studija je sprovedena kako bi se utvrdio nivo dodate vrednosti, potencijal za stvaranje radnih mesta i ekonomika malih proizvodnih jedinica za proizvodnju bombona sa kikirikijem i slanog kikirikija u Indiji. Kod proizvodnih jedinica niskog kapaciteta za proizvodnju bombona sa kikirikijem, dodata vrednost na kraju I faze (od mahune do jezgra) iznosila je $ 2,4/q, dok je kod proizvodnih jedinica visokog kapaciteta iznosila $ 2,2/q. Kod proizvodnih jedinica za proizvodnju slanog kikirikija, dodata vrednost iznosila je $2,2/q u slučaju proizvodnih jedinica niskog kapaciteta odnosno $2,3/q u slučaju proizvodnih jedinica visokog kapaciteta. U II fazi (od jezga do finalnog proizvoda), dodata vrednost je bila visoka imajući u vidu veličine i tipove jedinica za preradu. Proizvodne jedinice niskog odnosno visokog kapaciteta za proizvodnju bombona sa kikirkijem su generisale oko 525 odnosno 635 radnih dana radnika/mesec/proizvodna jedinica. Broj radnih mesta je bio manji u jedinicama za proizvodnju slanog kikirikija u odnosu na jedinice za proizvodnju bombona sa kikirikijem zbog različitih načina prerade. Samo jezgro je činilo 50 do 52 procenata ukupnih troškova u jedinicama za proizvodnju bombona sa kikirikijem, a 89 procenata u jedinicama za proizvodnju slanog kikirikija. Analiza osetljivosti je pokazala da promena cene jezgra direktno utiče na veličinu profita. Važne implikacije politike su se pojavile: ako proizvodne jedinice prerađuju mahune kako bi se dobila jezgra (I faza), umesto nabavke jezgra na tržištu, mogla bi se ostvariti značajna dodata vrednost, cena jezgra direktno utiče na profit, stoga bi odgovarajući mehanizam kao što je ‘ugovorna proizvodnja’ stabilizovao cenu jezgra, većina proizvodnih jedinica bi smanjila troškove rada tokom vansezonskog perioda usled manje potražnje tako da će diversifikacija u preradi stvoriti dovoljno radnih mesta da se zadrže postojeći obučeni radnici, i odgovarajuća politika intervencija je neophodna kako bi se rešila pitanja ograničenja kapitala, tehnologije i marketinga u proizvodnim jedinicama za preradu kikirikija.
Ključne reči: bombona sa kikirikijem, slani kikiriki, dodata vrednost,
ekonomska analiza, analiza osetljivosti.
Primljeno: 18. jula 2011. Odobreno: 27. oktobra 2011.
