Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals

A Project Report on
“A STUDY ON PURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF POTATO FARMERS FOR INDOFIL
PRODUCTS IN BARPETA DISTRICT OFASSAM”
A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of master of business administration in
agribusiness management and food technology of north east hill university
INSTITUTIONAL GUIDE
GINO A SANGMA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
AND FOOD TECHNOLOGY
NEHU TURA CAMPUS,
MEGHALAYA
ORGANIZATIONAL GUIDE
RAJIB SHARMA
REGIONAL SALES MANAGER
INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
GUWAHATI,
ASSAM
Presented By-
AJIT MAJUMDER
ABMFT 4th Semester
Roll No : ABFT 1601
Department of ABMFT
North- Eastern Hill University

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
3. STUDY AREA PROFILE
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5. DATAANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
7. APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION
Plant protection chemicals are the agrochemicals used in controlling the pests and diseases
that infect, consume or damage crops thereby significantly reducing the quantity and quality of food
production. The crop protection chemicals can be broadly classified into five groups viz.,
Insecticides, Fungicides, Herbicides, Bio-pesticides, Others (Fumigants, Rodenticides, Plant growth
regulators etc.).
Use of crop protection chemicals can increase crop productivity by 25-50%, by
mitigating crop loss due to pest attacks. Thus, crop protection chemicals are also very essential to
ensure food and nutritional security.
India is the fourth largest global producer of agrochemicals followed by US,
Japan and China. The global crop protection market is fairly consolidated with top nine companies
accounting for over 80 per cent of the market. Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and Indofil are the market
leaders in the global crop protection market.

Conceptual framework
Purchase Behavior
Consumer purchase behavior is a process of choosing, purchasing, using and disposing of products
or services by the individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs and wants. (Solomon et al,
1995)
Consumer purchase behavior describe as behavior that consumers express when they select and
purchase the products or services using their available resources in order to satisfy their needs and
desires. (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000)
Process of Consumer Behavior
1.Need recognition by customer 4. Purchase decision
2.Searching for information 5. Purchase
3.Evaluating alternative products and suppliers 6. Post Purchase Evaluation

MODEL OF PURCHASE BEHAVIOR
The Economic Model (Marshallian Model)
The theory holds that purchase behavior is largely “rational” and conscious economic calculations.
An individual buyer seeks to spend his income on such goods which give the most utility according
to his tastes and at relative price. Thus, one can predict consumer behavior based on economic
indicators such as the consumer’s purchasing power and the price of competitive products.
Consumer tend to purchase a similar product that is being offered at a lower price to maximize the
benefits (utility maximization), an increase in a consumer’s purchasing power allow him to increase
the quantity and quality of the products he is purchasing.
The Economical Model otherwise called as Marshallian model is related to this study as majority of
the samples (farmers) show similar tendency to maximize utility of money.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To study the general purchase behavior of plant protection
chemicals of the farmer specific to potato crop.
2. To understand the brand awareness of Indofil’s products.
3. To assess satisfaction and the benefit of specific Indofil’s
products. (Indofil M-45 and Moximate)
4. To study the acceptability of Indofil’s products.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The overall scope of the present study considers all the variables
and factors that have impact over farmers in purchasing particular brands
and considering the brand for purchasing again. The result of the study
provides information on farmers purchase behavior of pesticides specific
to potato crop and the brand awareness. Also this comparative study
attempts to evaluate the satisfaction level of the farmers towards Indofil’s
products and the benefit of specific Indofil’s products.
The findings of the study also focus on the marketing constraints
of Indofil’s products. The outcome of the projects will be useful to
company officials, farmers and academicians.

COMPANY PROFILE
INDOFIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, established five decades ago, headquartered in Mumbai, a research-led and fully
integrated Chemical Company has emerged as a successful and vibrant enterprise, riding high on a simple philosophy of
retaining loyalty and enlarging the fold of satisfied customers. Indofil industries limited is a fungicide giant in agro-
chemical industry. Indofil has its presence in more than 100+ countries as suppliers of Mancozeb formulations. Indofil
is one of the largest manufacturer of Mancozeb in the world. In marketing the Strategic Business Units (SBUs) are
governed through, the four verticals viz., fungicide, insecticides and herbicides and new business development.
VISION
Global leader in growth with customer success.
MISSION
1) To achieve leadership in Growth Rate with efficient R & D, Registration, Manufacturing and Marketing
Competencies through Committed and proficient team.
2) To make customers successful by providing High Quality Products, services and solutions in domestic and global
markets.
3) To expedite growth by Collaborations, Acquisitions and Manufacturing Proximity to the market in the segments of
Crop Care, Speciality and Performance chemicals.

VALUES
Customer Success
Believing that success lies in the success of existing and potential customers. On this foundation, doing all possible
to understand, fulfil and exceed customers’ stated and unstated needs, thus enabling them to succeed on a
continuous basis.
Knowledge
Continuously upgrade skills and knowledge about technology, markets, products, customers, regulations and
business processes. Encourage new ideas and their implementation across the company for commercial benefit.
Prosperity
Winning, doing better than others through exploiting new opportunities and enhancing the interests of every
employee, share holder and stake holder. To be recognised and perceived amongst the leaders in the segment of
operation.
Teamwork
Employee and channel partners thinking and working together across functions, business and geographies,
leveraging the available resources to achieve common goals.
Velocity
Responding to internal and external customers with a sense of urgency by consistent, focused and accelerated
growth of the organization with timely and optimal utilization of all resources.

Agent Plus
Atom
Beacon GR
Beacon SP
Click
Dash
Flash
FUNGICIDES
INSECTICIDES
HERBICIDESACARICIDES SURFACTANTS
PGR’s
List of products offered by Indofil

Manufacturing Capabilities
Indofil has two multi-product, state-of-the-art, PLC-based (Programmable Logic Control) manufacturing
facilities and multiple toll units across various locations in India. The first plant of Indofil at Thane,
commissioned in 1962, continues to possess one of the most modern production facilities in the industry. It is
one of the world’s largest EBDC fungicide plants and total production capacity is 20,000 tons. Indofil’s
second manufacturing facility is at Dahej and total production capacity is 30,000 tons.
Environment, Health & Safety
Indofil understand the importance of responsible Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) management to
achieve growth, profitability and long-term success.
Quality Policy
Quality Management System at IIL, spearheaded by Quality Assurance Function, acknowledge customer’s
need related to product, packing, documentation and timely delivery and aim to fulfil the same through well-
defined and integrated processes driven by the manufacturing team, with firm conviction on: “zero tolerance
for deviations and defects”.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
PURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF FARMERS
• Niyarepola et al. (2008) examined the buying behaviour of Paddy farmers towards insecticide.
Demand for insecticide depends on the impact of the extension service, price of the insecticide,
brand name of chemicals and the influence of the peer farmers. Farmer also does consider the
brand name of the insecticide. Farmers have also select insecticides based on the opinion of the
peer farmer when farmers are not readily access to the agriculture extension services.
• Belay et al. (2015) has conducted a study in Ethiopian Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia on
pesticide buying behavior among smallholder vegetable farmers. A total of 220 smallholders were
interviewed for the study. The results reveal that farmers dependable on private dealer and apply
pesticides in violation of the recommendations: they use unsafe storage facilities, ignore risks and
safety instructions, low price products are used in high dosage.

BRAND AWARENESS, SATISFACTION AND THE BENEFIT PERCEIVED BY THE
CUSTOMERS.
• Anupam Jain et al. (2012) has conducted a study in Garhwali of Uttarakhand on brand awareness in
rural area and to study the interest of consumers in branded products of Fast Moving Consumer
Goods (FMCG). The results found that majority of the consumer are aware of brand and the
preference for branded product is showing increasing tendency everywhere and Garhwali Region
of Uttarakhand State is not an exception to it.
• Moeed and Syeda (2015) has conducted a study in Pakistan to examines the effect of brand name
and perceptions of renowned firm’s name on farmers’ purchase preference in his journals “The
Impact of Brand Image and Firm’s name on Buyer’s Purchase Preference for Agriculture Products
in Pakistan”. A total number of 70 farmer were interviewed for this study. It was found from the
study that brands give feeling of satisfaction. Additionally, firm’s name is very helpful to get
attention to brand but they cannot guarantee final purchase preference.

ACCEPTABILITY OFAGRO CHEMICALS BY THE FARMERS
• Sagar and Pal (1984) has conducted a study on the perception of farmers regarding the plant
protection problems and their suggestions towards the acceptance of pesticide and its benefits in
increasing the yield of crops in his journal “Farmers Perception on Plant Protection Problems and
Their Suggestion for Increasing the Yield of Crops Under Jute Based Multiple Cropping System”.
The study revealed that quality and timely supply of pesticides influence the farmers purchase
pattern and acceptability of particular pesticides.
• Sharifzadeh et al (2017) has conducted a study by surveying 411 farmers in Mazandaran, Iran. The
study identify to study the farmers’ criteria for selecting and using pesticides and explaining
differences in selection criteria among farmers. Performance and effectiveness had the highest
importance for farmers when selecting and using pesticides followed by financial and accessibility
criteria. Farmers receive training regarding pesticide usage focus on integrated pest management
(IPM) practices.

RESEARCH GAP
• From the review of literature, it has been found that less studies have been done regarding the
purchase behavior and brand awareness but there were no study of purchase behavior and brand
awareness particularly for potato crop. Only few of the supportive studies by the researchers have
been done regarding the specialty molecules and its acceptability by the farmers. Being the study
area the major market of the company make it more distinguish, significant and unique in nature.
• Only few of the supportive studies has focused on the acceptance of plant protection chemicals
by the farmers. Even though, other studies have already considered all these different aspects like
purchase behavior and brand awareness but measuring the same parameters in Barpeta district of
Assam and drawing the aspects of brand acceptability will receive comparatively little more
attention from the researchers.

STUDY AREA PROFILE-BARPETA DISTRICT
Sl.no. Particulars Barpeta district
1. State Assam
2. Division Lower Assam
3. Villages (Nos.) 140
4. Geographical Area (sq. Km.) 3,245
5. Temperature (°c) 26 - 41
6. Average Annual Rainfall (Cm) 360 to 400
7. Population 1,693,622
8. Sex-Ratio 1000:951
9. Population Density (Nos.) 632
10. Literacy Rate (Male) (Percent) 57.55
11. Literacy Rate (Female) (Percent) 48.15

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The type of study done is Exploratory in nature.
Source Of Data
Relevant information for this study was collected from both Primary as well as Secondary Data.
• Primary Data: In this project Primary data were collected from potato farmers by using a structured
questionnaire.
• Secondary Data: The secondary data were collected from the website, journal, newspaper, and report
published by various agencies.
Research Approach
Questionnaire survey: The survey method was adopted for collecting the primary data from the farmers of
Barpeta District of Assam through questionnaire.

Research Instrument
The data for this research study was collected by survey technic using interview method guided by
questionnaire.
Sample Design
Sample design is a definite plan for obtaining a sample from a population. Since the target respondent are
those farmer who cultivate potato, hence all potato farmers in Barpeta district are considered as total
population.
Choice of Study Area
Barpeta district of Assam was purposively selected for the study since it is one of the most important
vegetables growing districts in the state. The area is known for its intensive usage of pesticide for cultivation
of vegetables. This district has potential for the pesticides business. From the district, top four functional areas,
viz., Barpeta, Mandia, Kalgasia and Moinbari, which have higher consumption of Indofil products in Barpeta
were selected.

Selection of Potato Farmers from the Functional Areas
Total number of potato farmers in the selected four functional areas are different, proportionate numbers of
respondent were selected randomly. Thus, a total of 200 sample
respondent farmers were selected.
Sampling Technique
The sampling technique adopted was convenience sampling.
Limitations Of The Study
 The study was limited to the agro chemicals specific to potato crop
reported in the Barpeta district of Assam and the findings may not be appropriate to other markets.
 The study has the limitations of time, limited size of the sample and resources.
 The validity of the data is limited to the ability of the farmers to recall influences operating on their decisions
and to recognize the sources. But utmost care has been taken in collection, analysis and presentation of data.
DISTRICT FUNCTIONAL
AREAS
NOS. OF FARMER
BARPETA
1. Barpeta 24
1. Mandia 120
1. Kalgasia 35
1. Moinbari 21

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
Education
Qualification
Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Degree 11 5.5
Up to 12th standard 12 6
Up to 10th standard 51 25.5
Up to 5th standard 28 14
Illiterate 98 49
SECTION 1: FARMERS’ PROFILE
Table 5.1 Education status of sample
farmers
5.50%
6%
25.50%
14%
49%
Figure 5.1 Education status of sample farmers
Degree
Up to 12th
standard
Up to 10th
standard
Up to 5th
standard
Illiterate
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that the sample size of farmers was 200. 5.5 percent of the farmers were having
qualification of degree, 14 percent were having education qualification up to 5th standard, and 49 percent of the respondents were
illiterate. The educational status reveals that greater of sample farmers are illiterate. The main reasons for illiteracy of farmers are
due to poverty, remote location, dependency on farming and lack of education facilities. High illiteracy is
responsible for poor knowledge of farmers regarding several chemical combination, higher dependency on dealer and inability to
recognize the particular product

Operational Holdings Nos. of farmer Per cent
Marginal farmers (up to
2.5 acres)
146 73
Small farmers (2.5-5
acres)
23 11.5
Medium farmers (5-10
acres)
19 9.5
Large farmers (above 10
acres)
12 6
Total 200 100
Table 5.2 Operational holdings of
farmers
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 73 percent of the potato farmers were marginal in nature having
operational holdings up to 2.5 acres and only 6 percent of the potato farmers were big in nature having operational land
holdings above 10 acres. And from the previous table it is noted that illiteracy dominate majority of the farmers and
therefore they tend to cultivate less area of land, as it is seen that most of the medium and large farmers are literate and
tend to cultivate more area by taking land on lease as a result of agricultural awareness.
146
23 19
12
73%
11.5% 9.5%
6%0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Marginal farmers Small farmers Medium farmers Large farmers
Figure 5.2 Operational holdings of farmers
Nos. of farmer Per cent

SECTION 2: GENERAL PURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF
PLANT PROTECTION CHEMICALS OF THE
FARMER
Place Nos. of farmer Per cent
Village 58 29
Town 20 10
Main market ( Business
Hub)
122 61
Government sources 00 00
Total 200 100
Table 5.3 Place of purchase of plant
protection chemicals
58
20
122
0
29%
10%
61%
0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Village Town Main market Government sources
Figure 5.3 Place of purchase of PPC
Nos. of farmer
Per cent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.3 shows that only 10 percent of the potato farmer purchase from town where 61
percent of the potato farmers purchase chemical from main market. The study reveals that greater percent of the
farmers purchase chemical from main market. It is due to availability of required brand or product, varieties
of brand, lesser price of products compare to village and credit facility in main market.

Mode Nos. of farmer Per cent
Cash 70 35
Credit 10 5
Both 120 60
Total 200 100
Table 5.4 Mode of payment by farmers
70
10
120
35%
5%
60%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Cash Credit Both
Figure 5.4 Mode of payment by farmers
Nos. of farmer
Per cent
Interpretation: It is evaded from the Table that 35 percent of the farmers pay cash while purchasing chemicals and
5 percent of the farmers purchase on credit basis where 60 percent of the farmers buy sometimes in credit or cash
term as per the understanding between farmers and dealers. This study reveals that greater percentage of the
farmers purchase chemicals either in cash or credit form. The previous table reveals that greater percent of the
farmers purchase chemical from main market. It is preferable for farmer to purchase if credit facility is available, as
it encourages farmers to follow proper doses of chemical application in field. Hence it is seen that majority
of the farmers purchase chemical from the main market for the benefit of bulk purchase and credit facility.

Decision of
purchase
Nos. of
farmer
Per cent
Dealer dependence 98 49
Past experience 91 45.5
Fellow farmers 11 5.5
Total 200 100
Table 5.5 Purchase decision by farmers
98
91
11
49% 45.5%
5.5%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Dealer dependence Past experience Fellow farmers
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.5 Purchase decision by farmers
Nos. of farmer Per cent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.5 shows that 49 percent of the potato farmers were dependent on dealer
recommendation in order to purchase chemicals, 45.5 percent of the potato farmers were having clear cut idea about
which chemicals to purchase based on past experience and 5.5 percent of the potato farmers take purchase decision by
discussing with their fellow farmers. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers make chemicals purchase
decision with the influence and recommendation of dealer. It is because majority of the farmers are illiterate and
marginal in nature.

Dealer’s response
toward the demanded
brand by the farmer
Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Always provide 156 78
Give available brand 30 15
Change brand 14 7
Total 200 100
Table 5.6 Dealer’s attitude toward the
demanded brand by the farmer
156
30
14
78%
15% 7%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Always provide Provide available
product
Change brand
Figure 5.6 Dealer’s attitude toward the demanded brand by the
farmer
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 78 percent of the farmers were always provided with particular
brand, 15 percent of the farmers were provided with whatever available brand and 7 percent of the farmers were
provided with other brand with different chemical combination, when sample farmer ask for a particular brand
from the dealer. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers are always provided with the particular
brand that are asked by farmers. There is a major section of farmers who are brand loyal and only use that brand
for major disease control. And an important section of the farmers depend on the choice of dealer.

Acceptance of
other brand
Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Yes 53 26.5
No 147 73.5
Total 200 100
Table 5.7 Acceptance of dealers’ given
brand against the demanded brand by
the farmers
26.5%
73.5%
Figure 5.7 Acceptance of dealers’ given brand against the
demanded brand by the farmers
53 147
No
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 26.5 percent of the farmers accept other brand and 73.5 percent of
the farmers do not accept other brand if other brand is provided by the dealer instead of the particularly demanded
brand. This study reveals that greater percentage of farmers are illiterate and due to less knowledge of variety of
products, to control major diseases farmers keep few particular brands in remember that the farmers
perceived better. The farmers who are very specific about the purchase of particular brand do not accept other
brand and these farmer basically stick to four to six specialty brands. It is also noted that huge number of the
farmer use one to three brand of same chemical for controlling major disease at a same time.
Yes

Preferences Of Purchase By The Farmer
Quality Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Strongly agree 78 39
Somewhat agree 109 54.5
Neutral 13 6.5
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0
Total 200 100
Table 5.8 Preference of quality by the farmer
78
109
13
0 0
39% 54.5%
6.5% 0% 0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Figure 5.8 Preference of quality by the farmer
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 39 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer quality during the
purchase, 54.5 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 6.5 percent of the farmers are neutral to quality preference
and no farmer is found to disagree the preference for quality. This study reveals that greater percentage of the
farmers somewhat agree to prefer for quality of the product. Although several parameter has overall impact on
farmers but quality or performance of chemical become priority whenever severity of disease
arise.

Availability Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Neutral 19 9.5
Total 200 100
Table 5.9 Preference of availability
104
77
19
0 0
52%
38.5%
9.5%
0% 0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Figure 5.9 Preference of availability by the farmer
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 52 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer availability
during the purchase, 38.5 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 9.5 percent of the farmers are neutral to
availability preference. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers strongly agree to prefer for
availability of the product. Due to several supply bottleneck greater percent of the farmers don’t get required
product. Hence illiterate and small farmer who prefer to purchase chemicals on credit focus on the what is
available of the required combination from his favorite dealers.

Price Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Somewhat agree 46 23
Neutral 14 7
Somewhat
disagree
0 0
Total 200 100
Table 5.10 Preference of price by the
farmer 140
46
14
0 0
70%
23%
7%
0% 0%0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Figure 5.10 Preference of price by the farmer
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 70 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer price during the
purchase, 23 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 7 percent of the farmers are neutral to price preference. This
study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers strongly agree to prefer for price of the product. And it is also
seen that greater percent of the farmer are marginal farmers and financial performance is weak. Hence it can be
understood that major focus of the farmer is on price. Price play as a most important thing when farmer purchase.
Due to price difference farmers often switch to other brand(Economical Model).

Packing Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Neutral 135 67.5
Total 200 100
Table 5.11 Preference of packing by the
farmer
24
41
135
0 0
12% 20.5%
67.5%
0% 0%0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Figure 5.11 Preference of packing by the farmer
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 12 percent of the farmers strongly agree to prefer packing during the
purchase, 20.5 percent of the farmers somewhat agree, 67.5 percent of the farmers are neutral to packing
preference and no farmer is found to disagree the preference for packing. This study reveals that greater percentage
of the farmers were neutral about the preference for packing of the product. Although packing of the products play
a significant role as it able farmers to recognize the products as greater percent of the farmers cannot read the name
of the products or brand.

Recommendation of
government
Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Strongly agree 0 0
Somewhat agree 0 0
Neutral 0 0
Total 200 100
Table 5.12 Preference of recommendation
of government by the farmer
0 0 0 0
200
0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0
50
100
150
200
250
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neutral Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Figure 5.12 Preference of recommendation of government
by the farmer
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.12 shows that 100 percent of the farmers strongly disagree to prefer government’s
recommendation during the purchase. This study reveals that greater percentage of the farmers strongly disagree to prefer for
recommendation of government.
This overall study about the different factors that influence the preference of purchase of the farmers reveal that greater
percentage of farmers’ preference of purchase focus the price of the product followed by availability, quality, packing and
recommendation of government, which are ranked first, second, third, fourth and fifth based on the basis of purchase
preferences respectively. It is seen from the previous tables that majority of the farmers are marginal and small and try to stick to
of his own choice. Hence it can be understood that farmers focus on price, availability and the quality. A crisis of availability of
particular quality products is observed here.

SECTION 3: BRAND AWARENESS OF INDOFIL’S
PRODUCTS.
Knowledge of
blight disease
Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Yes 200 100
No 00 0
Total 200 100
Table 5.13 Knowledge of “blight” disease
200
100%
0 0%
0
50
100
150
200
250
Nos. of farmer Percent
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.13 Knowledge of blight
Yes
No
Interpretation: The Table shows that 100 percent of the potato farmers can recognize blight. The previous section
reveals that greater percent of the farmers depend on dealer due to lack of educational qualification and knowledge of
chemical. It is also noted that farmer purchase chemical based on the severity of disease i.e. early blight and late blight.
It is seen during the study that common appearance of blight is noticed by all sample farmers. Based on the severity of
blight farmers proceed to make purchase decision.

Severity of early
blight
Extremely severe 16 8
Somewhat severe 17 8.5
Moderate 34 17
Low 53 26.5
Very low 80 40
Total 200 100
Table 5.14 Severity of early blight disease
16 17 34
53
80
200
8% 8.5% 17% 26.5%
40%
100%
0
50
100
150
200
250
Extremely
severe
Somewhat
severe
Moderate Low Very low Total
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.14 Severity of early blight
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 8 percent of early blight is extremely severe, 8.5 percent
somewhat severe, 17 percent moderate, 26.5 percent low and 40 percent very low. This study reveals
that greater percentage of severity of the early blight appeared on potato crop is very low. Pre
application and timely application of chemical is the reason behind the protection against
disease.

Severity of late
blight
Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Extremely severe 7 3.5
Somewhat severe 35 17.5
Moderate 45 22.5
Low 35 17.5
Very low 78 39
Total 200 100
Table 5.15 Severity of late blight
disease
7
35
45
35
78
3.5%
17.5%
22.5%
17.5%
39%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Extremely
severe
Somewhat
severe
Moderate Low Very low
Figure 5.15 Severity of late blight
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 3.5 percent of late blight is extremely severe, 17.5
percent is somewhat severe, 22.5 percent is moderate, 17.5 percent is low and 39 percent is very
low. This study reveals that greater percentage of the late blight is very low. There are few other
diseases responsible for the damages of crop.

Products Companies Nos. of
Farmer
Percent
Indofil M-45 Indofil Chemical Company 150 75
Ridomil Gold Syngenta India Ltd. 126 63
Saaf United Phosphorus
Limited
114 57
Dithane M-45 Dow Agro Sciences 86 43
Index NACL Industries Limited 82 41
Kavach Syngenta India Ltd. 74 37
Antracol Bayer Crop Science 68 34
Moximate Indofil Chemical Company 62 31
Table 5.16 Products used for blight disease
150
126 114
86 82
74 68
6275%
63%
57%
43% 41% 37% 34% 31%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.16 Product used for blight disease
Nos. of Farmer
Percent
Interpretation: "Indofil M-45" is used highest among the top products used by the farmers to check blight in
potato crop due to reasonable price and quality but because of lack of availability farmer shift to other brand.
Ridomil Gold, Saaf, Index, Dithane M-45, Kavach, Antracol and "Moximate"are being used by 63%, 57%, 43%,
41%, 37%, 34% and 31% of the farmers respectively. The farmers use these products based on the perception
received based on the price, availability and quality, farmers do not change particular products unless there
is any issue with the quality or the products are not available.

Sources Indofil M-45 Moximate
Nos. of
farmer
Percent Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Previously used 126 63 36 18
Company
people(Indofil)
8 4 8 4
Company
people(Others)
0 0 0 0
Dealer’s shop 16 8 18 9
Government
sources
0 0 0 0
Total 150 75 62 31
Table 5.17 Sources of information about
Indofil’s product
126
63%
36
18%
8 4% % 4%0 0% 0 0%
16
8%
18 9%
0 0% 0 0%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nos. of farmer Percent Nos. of farmer Percent
Indofil M-45 Moximate
Figure 5.17 Sources of information about Indofil’s product
Previously used Company people(Indofil) Company people(Others)
Dealer’s shop Government sources
Interpretation: Total nos. of "Indofil M-45" user is 150 and "Moximate"is 62. A perusal of Table shows that out of 63 percent
of Indofil’s M-45 user and 18 percent of the "Moximate"user used the brand from previously due to presence for long span in
market, whereas 4 percent of Indofil’s M-45 user, 4 percent of the "Moximate"users are informed by the Indofil company
representative and 8 percent of Indofil’s M-45 user and 9 percent of the "Moximate“ user are given the brand by the dealer.
Being dealer the major influencer for purchasing the particular brand, to promote the brand company must look in the sector. It
is clear from the table that majority of the farmers are aware of "Indofil M-45" brand. Though it is been seen that greater
percent of the farmer are not using "Moximate"due to less satisfaction and advantages perceived by them.
Total nos. of farmer 200

Reasons Indofil M-45 Moximate
Nos. of
farmer
Percent Nos. of
farmer
Percent
Not heard of
Brand
8 4 83 41.5
Heard of Brand but
not used
11 5.5 8 4
Heard of Brand but
was not available
0 0 10 5
Used earlier but not
satisfied with results
9 4.5 4 2
Using other molecules
and satisfied
22 11 33 16.5
Total 50 25 138 69
Table 5.18 Reasons behind of not using
Indofil’s product
8
4%
83
41.5%
11
5.5%
8
4%
0
0
10
5%
9
4.5%
4
2%
22
11%
33
16.5%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Nos. of farmer
Percent
IndofilM-45Moximate
Figure 5.18 Reason behind of not using Indofil’s
product
Using other molecules and
satisfied
Used earlier but not
satisfied with results
Heard of Brand but was
not available
Heard of Brand but not
used
Not heard of Brand
Interpretation: 4 percent and 41.5 percent of the farmer never heard of "Indofil M-45" brand, 4.5 percent and 2 percent of the
farmers are not satisfied with the result of "Indofil M-45" and "Moximate"brand. 11 percent and 16.5 percent of the farmers
use other brand and satisfied with that. Overall 25 percent of the farmers do not use "Indofil M-45" brand and 69 percent of the
farmers do not use "Moximate“ brand. Hence it is clear from the table that due to strong presence of other brand
greater percent of the farmers who are not using Indofil’s products are using other and comparatively higher percent of the
farmers choose alternate brand.

Recognition by Nos. of user
(Total Indofil’s
product user is 160)
Percent
Color/design of
packet
160 100
Company name 80 50
Brand name 80 50
Company
logo/picture
144 90
Hologram 144 90
Table 5.19 Recognition of Indofil’s
Products by its’ user 160
80 80
144 144
100%
50% 50%
90% 90%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Color/design
of packet
Company
name
Brand name Company
logo/picture
Hologram
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.19 Recognition of Indofil’s Products by it’s user
Nos. of user
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 100 percent of the Indofil’s user recognize its products only by the color or
design of the packet, 50 percent of the user recognize by company name, 50 percent of the user recognize Brand name, and
90 percent of the user recognize company logo and picture and hologram. It is seen in previous table that greater percent of
the farmers are illiterate and dealer dependent. Hence it is clear from the table that majority of the user cannot read and
highly depend on the color, design, logo, picture and hologram. It is stated that any changes in color and design of the
packet causes confusion about originality and authenticity about the products. Hence company should take careful measures
while making any changes in the color or design of the packet
Note: Total user of Indofil’s product is 160

Products Satisfaction level
Non
userExtrem
ely
satisfied
Some
what
satisfied
Moder
ate
Some
what
dissat
isfied
Extre
mely
dissat
isfied
Indofil
M-45
32 62 20 24 12 50
Ridomil
Gold
29 38 19 19 21 74
Saaf 11 58 11 16 18 86
Dithane
M-45
8 40 25 9 4 114
Kavach 7 25 16 13 13 126
Index 4 24 12 21 21 118
Moximate 4 21 7 17 13 138
Antracol 2 13 11 23 19 132
Table 5.20 Satisfaction level of used products
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Indofil M-
45
Ridomil
Gold
Saaf Dithane
M-45
Kavach Index Moximate Antracol
Figure 5.20 Satisfaction level of used products
Satisfaction level Extremely satisfied Satisfaction level Somewhat satisfied
Satisfaction level Moderate Satisfaction level Somewhat dissatisfy
Satisfaction level Extremely dissatisfied Non user
Interpretation: Highest percent of the farmers are satisfied with "Indofil M-45" followed by Ridomil M-45,
Saaf, Dithane m-45, Kavach, Index, "Moximate"and Antracol. The requirement of dose per acre, nos. of spray
and the cost incurred due to crop protection chemical usage per acre influence the satisfaction level of any
particular brand. Indofil’s M-45 is stated to be most cost effective. Failure in effectiveness of chemical and
efficiency of cost effectiveness promote negative satisfaction. The similar pattern is been seen in the product
usage for late blight by the farmers. Farmers prefer particular brand based on the satisfaction
perceived by them.
SECTION 4: SATISFACTION LEVELAND THE BENEFIT OF INDOFIL’S PRODUCTS

Advantages
perceived/products
Brand Indofil
M-45
Ridomil
Gold
Saaf Dithane
M-45
Disease control
(% of farmer)
77.5 70.5 67.5 67
Increase in yield
(% of farmer)
72.5 52.5 46 43
Shining/ Weight
(% of farmer)
57 28 32 23
Better milling
(% of farmer)
43 37 28.5 33
Over all healthy crop
(% of farmer)
62.5 47 43.5 41.5
Table 5.21 Advantages of top 4 products
used for potato diseases
77.5
72.5
57
43
62.5
70.5
52.5
28
36.5
47
67.5
46
32
28.5
43.5
67
43
23
33
41.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Disease
control
(% of
farmer)
Increase
in yield
(% of
farmer)
Shining/
Weight
(% of
farmer)
Better
milling
(% of
farmer)
Over all
healthy
crop (%
of
farmer)
Figure 5.21 Advantages of top 4 products used for potato diseases
Indofil M-45 Ridomil Gold Saaf Dithane M-45
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 62.5 percent of the farmers are benefitted with over all crop
growth advantage and highly valued "Indofil M-45" which is manufactured by Indofil Chemical Company.
The satisfaction percent of Ridomil M-45, Saaf and Dithane M-45 are 47%, 43.5%, 41.5% respectively. It is
noted from the previous table that the farmers prefer the particular brand (perceived highly valuable by
farmers) based on the parameter viz., disease control, yield increase, shining, weight, better milling and overall
growth of crop. Due to the existence in the market for long span, farmers acknowledge four to six
particular brand highly valuable and tend to stick to those brand. (Economical Model)

Products Nos.
of
farm
er
Perc
ent
Reasons for
recommendation
Indofil M-
45
Indofil
Chemical
Company
104 52  Quality
 Previous
experience
Ridomil
Gold
Syngenta
India Ltd.
102 51  Previous
experience
 Brand
Popularity
Saaf United
Phosphorus
Limited
84 42  Timely
availability
 Brand
Popularity
Dithane M-
45
Dow Agro
Sciences
66 33  Competitive
price
 Quality
Table 5.22 Major recommended
fungicide by the farmers
104 102
84
66
52% 51%
42%
33%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Indofil M-45 Ridomil Gold Saaf Dithane M-45
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.22 Major recommended
fungicide by the farmers
Interpretation: A perusal of Table 5.19 shows that 52 percent of the farmers recommend "Indofil M-45" brand. The other
recommended brands which are very near to "Indofil M-45" brand are Ridomil Gold (51%), followed by Saaf (42%) and
Dithane M-45 (33%). It is clear from the study that majority of the recommendation of fungicide was for "Indofil M-45"
brand, followed by, very nearer to that Ridomil Gold brand. It is due to past experience, perceived
satisfaction and higher disease control advantages.

SECTION 5: ACCEPTABILITY OF INDOFIL’S
PRODUCTS
Particulars Indofil M-45 Moximate
Nos.
of user
Percent
of user
Nos.
of user
Percent
of user
Increase 00 0 0 0
Decrease 108 72 55 89
No change 42 28 7 11
Table 5.24 Suggestion given by the
product user on price
0
108
42
0
55
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Increase Decrease No change
Figure 5.24 Suggestion given by the user on price
Indofil M-45 Nos. of user Moximate Nos. of user
Interpretation: The Table shows that 28 percent of the "Indofil M-45" user has no issue with the price but 72
percent of the "Indofil M-45" user want the price of it to decrease, whereas 11 percent of the "Moximate“ user
has no issue with the price but 89 percent of the "Moximate“ user want the price of it to decrease. It is clear that
majority of the want the price to decrease. It is seen in the study that price influence the farmers the most.
Hence the company should give attention to the price factor while framing the marketing strategy. Due to price
farmers tend to shift other brand.
Note: Total user of Indofil M-45 is 150
and "Moximate"is 62.

Availability
of brand
Nos. of
user
Percent of
user
Nos. of
user
Percent
of user
Always
available
97 65 37 60
sometimes 31 21 18 29
Never 22 14 7 11
Table 5.25 Products availability
suggested by the user
97
65%
37
60%
31
21% 18
29%
22
14% 7 11%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Nos. of user Percent of
user
user
Table 5.25 Products availability suggested by the user
Always available
sometimes
Never
Interpretation: 65 percent of "Indofil M-45" users suggest that the brand is always available and 14 percent of the
users suggest that the band is never available. Where 60 percent of the "Moximate"users suggest that the brand is
always available and 11 percent of the "Moximate"users suggest that the band is not available at all. One third
of the user suggest that the products is not always available. Continuous availability of
products is seen a crucial parameter for the acceptance of brand and the retention of previous user. Huge numbers
of Indofil’s user are new user of products.
Note: Total user of "Indofil M-45" is 150

Improvement
of quality Indofil M-45 Moximate
Nos. of
user
Percent
of user
Nos. of
user
Percent
of user
Yes 123 82 55 89
No 27 18 7 11
Table 5.26 Products Quality Suggested by
the user
123
82%
55
89%
27
18%
7
11%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nos. of user Percent of user Nos. of user Percent of user
Table 5.26 Products Quality Suggested by the
user
Yes No
Interpretation: The Table shows that 82 percent of “Indofil M-45” users and 89 percent of "Moximate“ users
suggest to improve the quality of the brand. It is been seen during observation that farmers has been
experiencing decreasing quality. Although majority of the total sample farmers use Indofil’s products but
the company should concentrate on this segment.
Note: Total user of "Indofil M-45" is 150 and
"Moximate"is 62.

Fold of packing Yes No
Single 113 47
Double 61 99
Table 5.27 Package folding suggested
by user
113
61
47
99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Single Double
Nos.offarmer
Figure 5.27 Suggestion about fold packing
Yes
No
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 113 user suggest for single fold packing, where 99 user
do not require double fold packing. It is clear from the table that majority of the farmers suggest to
have products with single fold packing. As farmers usually don’t carry the outer box while
purchasing products and drop the packet in dealer shop itself. It also increase chance of malpractices
that may harm brand image.
Note: Total user of Indofil’s product is 160.

Improvement
of packing
Nos. of
user
Percent
of user
Nos. of
user
Percent
of user
Yes 10 7 5 8
No 140 93 57 92
Table 5.28 Suggestion given by the user on
packing
10 7% 5 8%
140
93%
57
92%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
user
user
Figure 5.28 Suggestion given by the user on
packing
Yes
No
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 93 percent of "Indofil M-45" users and 92 percent of "Moximate“
users do not suggest for any improvement of the packing of the product. It is clear from the study that majority of
the user do not require any improvement rather the users want the color and design to remain same.
Due to illiteracy majority of the farmers greatly depend on the appearance of the products to recognize the
particular brand.
Note: Total user of "Indofil M-45" is 150

Particulars Nos. of user Percent of
user
Precautionary
measure
47 23.5
After seeing
the symptoms
113 56.5
Table 5.29 Farmers preference of time of
chemical application for disease control
47
113
23.5%
56.5%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Precautionary measure
After seeing the symptoms
Table 5.29 Farmers preference of time of chemical
application for disease control
Percent of user Nos. of user
Interpretation: The duration of chemical spray is very important in the management of disease. 23.5 percent
of the farmers spray the chemicals as a precautionary measure and 56.5 percent of the farmers spray after
seeing the symptoms. Majority of the user use chemical after seeing the symptoms. Hence it is very important
to have sustainable availability during disease intensive period. Along with this promotional
strategies can be addressed before the season of target crop and village that will improve the quality of crop
production and potential purchase.

Particulars Nos. of farmer Percent
Field demonstration 30 19
Field observation 81 51
Farmers meeting 49 30
Table 5.30 Extension services suggested
by the farmers
30
81
49
19%
51%
30%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Field
demonstration
Field
observation
Farmers
meeting
Extension services suggested by the farmers
Nos. of farmer
Percent
Interpretation: A perusal of Table shows that 51 percent of farmer has suggested for the extension service
called field observation followed by farmers meeting in the field or outside the field (30%) and field
demonstration (19%). Field observation is suggested by the majority of the farmers from the company. More
on it increase the awareness of brand and encourage potential purchase of the products.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The present study entitled “A study on purchase behavior of potato farmers for Indofil’s
products in Barpeta district of Assam” was intend to study general purchase behavior of plant
protection chemicals of the farmers, brand awareness of Indofil, satisfaction and benefit received by
the farmers and in what extend farmer accept Indofil’s products in Barpeta district, Assam.
Marketers must study the costumer’s taste, preferences, dealers’ influence, wants, purchase
behavior, pattern and what influence the farmer to accept because such study provides the clues for
developing the new products, price, and product improvement, overcome marketing
constraints and other marketing mix elements. Brand preference and brand loyalty are now
crystallizing in the farmers mind, wherever there is total satisfaction from performance of a product.
Based on the parameters of price, availability, quality, packing, immediate performance of products
and overall disease control, farmers accept a particular brand over other brand. Against this
background, the present study has been taken up with the following findings, suggestions and
recommendations and conclusions.

MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
Farmers’ Profile of Krishna District
i. 5.5 per cent of the sample farmer were having education qualification of degree, 6 per cent of the
respondents were having education qualification up to 12th standard, 25.5 per cent of the respondents
were having education qualification up to 10th standard, 14 per cent were having education qualification
up to 5th standard, and 49 per cent of the respondent farmers were illiterate.
ii. Majority of the Potato farmers (73%) were marginal farmer having operational holdings up to 2.5 acres,
where very less potato farmers (15.5%) were medium and big farmer having operational holdings above
5 acres.

General Pesticide Purchase Behavior of Farmers Specific to Potato Crop
i. Majority of the potato farmers (61%) purchase chemical from main market.
ii. 35 per cent of the farmers pay only on cash basis while purchasing chemicals, 5 per cent of the farmers
purchase only on credit basis and 60 per cent of the farmers buy sometimes in credit or cash.
iii. Majority of the potato farmers (49%) were dependent on the recommendation of the dealer to purchase
chemical for disease control where 45.5 percent the potato farmer purchase based on their past experience
perceived by them.
iv. Whenever farmer ask for a particular brand from the dealer, majority of the farmers (78%) were always
provided with particular brand by the dealer.
V. Majority of the farmers (73.5%) do not accept other brand to control major diseases if other brand is
provided by the dealer instead of the particularly demanded brand by the farmers.
VI. Price(70%) is considered as the most crucial factor for the farmers’ preference of purchase and
availability(52%) was considered next to be influencer followed by quality(39%), packing and
recommendation of government.

Brand Awareness of Indofil’s Products
• Majority of the farmers (75%) use Indofil’s M-45 brand followed by “Ridomil Gold” (63%), “Saaf” (57%),
“Index” (43%), “Dithane M-45” (41%), “Kavach” (37%), Antracol (34%) and "Moximate"(31%) for
controlling major diseases control.
• Majority of the Indofil’s user (63%) use Indofil M-45 brand from previously.
• 18 percent of Moximate brand user use Moximate from previously.
• 25 percent of the sample farmers never used Indofil M-45 brand, majority of the sample farmers (69%) never
used Moximate brand and overall 20 percent of the sample farmers never used any of the Indofil’s products.
• Majority of the Indofil’s brand user (100%) recognize its products only by the color or design of the packet and
90 percent of the user recognize company logo, picture and hologram where only half of the Indofil’s user
(50%) recognize or read by company name and Brand name.

Satisfaction Level And The Benefit of Indofil’s Products
Majority of the sample farmers was satisfied with Indofil M-45 brand for its excellent
performance followed by Ridomil M-45, Saaf, Dithane m-45, Kavach, Index, Moximate and
Antracol.
62.5 percent of the farmers perceived Indofil M-45 with higher value and over all advantageous
followed by Ridomil M-45 (47%), Saaf (43.5%) and Dithane M-45 (41.5%).
Among all recommended brand greater percent of the farmers (52%) recommended Indofil M45
followed by Ridomil Gold (51%), Saaf (42%) and Dithane M-45 (33%).

Acceptability of Specialty Molecules
• Majority of the “Indofil M-45” (72%) and “Moximate” (89%) user has suggested to reduce the price of the
product.
• 65 percent of “Indofil M-45” users and 60 percent of the “Moximate” users said that the brand is always
available where 14 percent of the “Indofil M-45” and 11 percent of the “Moximate” users said that the band is
not available.
• Majority of the farmers has suggested to have products with single fold packing rather double fold packing.
• Majority of the farmers (56.5%) spray chemicals only after seeing the symptoms and 23.5 per cent of the
farmers spray the fungicides as a precautionary measure.
• Majority of the users (51%) has expressed for field observation as an extension services towards the farmers
followed by farmers meeting in the field or outside the field (30%) and field demonstration (19%).

SUGGESTIONS
Product Positioning in Main Market :
Main market as it is the main hub of most purchase. Availability of all products are scarce. Although there is a huge supply
gap in main market and village market, with the point of sale and product penetration, extending the product line and have
sustainable existence in main market become very crucial.
Dealer as a part of Brand Promotion:
Majority of the farmers depend on the dealer not only for chemicals purchase decision but also for information regarding
chemicals and it’s recommendation. Drawing dealer for promotional purpose should be well strategized as dealer play the
major role to influence the purchase by the farmer.
Company Brand Position:
It is also important that company must be dedicated to enhance brand awareness. Workforce should aim to establish the
brand name with reference of most popular brand of its own and to empower the brand name. Once the Brand position
decision is made, Brand identity and value proposition can be translated into a suitable execution strategy in the form of an
integrated advertising campaign.

Brand Mark:
Major changes in colour and design of the packet create unnecessary confusion of its originality as majority of the farmers
are illiterate and identify the products only by it’s color and design. Single packing (primary packing) other than the outer
box (secondary packing) can be used to avoid malpractices during marketing.
Extension service before the Initiation of every Season:
Mass participation of farmers through conducting field demonstration(demo fields), farmers meeting in selective villages
are needed. A progressive farmer may be selected and free samples may be given for demonstration purpose, which gives a
scope to explain to other farmers and provide information easily to the farmers.
Increase of field services, building farmers relationship, brand availability in all village market, product line extension in
main market and dealer association ship may influence the farmer to accept the brand and it will lead to high consumption
of the brand with sustainable sale growth.

CONCLUSION
The study regarding purchase behavior of potato farmers for Indofil’s products adopted in Barpeta
district of Assam. Majority of the farmers are illiterate and marginal farmer having operational holdings up to
2.5 acres. They prefer to buy plant protection chemicals from main market both in cash and credit. More than
half all farmers are totally dependent on the dealer for the information and the brands. Farmers mostly select
few particular brand for major disease control. Price and availability of the products impact in choosing and
accepting particular brand.
Majority of the farmers are aware of Indofil’s products and using different brand of it. “Indofil M-
45” brand is most used products of Indofil Company followed by Moximate, Indofil Z-78 and Sprint.
Indofil”s products are well recognized and recommended brand among majority of the farmers. Due to
illiteracy majority of the farmers recognize the brands only by its color, design and logo of the products. Some
of the major aspects impact acceptability of the products are viz., price, availability in main market, quality of
the products and extension services viz., field observation, field demonstration and farmers meeting provided
by the company.
Therefore, the undertaken work will help Indofil Industries Limited in improving its market
constraints and sale bottleneck.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Books:
• Kulkarni M.V, Marketing Research (IV Edition), Everest Publication House, New Delhi, 2003.
• Mamoria, C.B and Gankar, S.V (2002) “Personnel Management” Published by Himalaya Publishing House.
• Philip Kotler and Kevin Lane Keller (12e), Marketing Management, Pearson Education.
• Principles of Marketing – C N Sontakki, Kalyani Publishers.
• Tripathi, P.; Reddy, P., Principles of Management, New Delhi, Tata Mcgraw Hill
 Websites:
• http://croplifeindia.org/importance-of-crop-protection-products-in-indian-agriculture
• http://ipca.org.in/pesticide-regulations
• http://barpeta.gov.in/index.html
• https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html
• https://www.indofilagro.com
• http://indofilcc.com/
• http://www.academia.edu/7838224/Farmers_buying_behaviour_towards_pesticide_-_By_Ram_Ahir
• https://research-methodology.net/consumer-buyer-behaviour-definition
• http://indiainbusiness.nic.in/newdesign/upload/Agrochemicals-Knowledge-report-2016.pdf

Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals

Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals

Ähnlich wie Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals (20)

Mehr von Ajit Majumder

Mehr von Ajit Majumder (16)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Purchase behaviour of Plant Protection Chemicals