Its study for insecticide India Ltd, done at Gobisettipalayam Taluk in Erode district

4. Global & Indian Consumption Source: http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf

5. Source: http://www.business-standard.com/pdf/rallis%20india-initiating%20coverage%20-%2020.07.09.pdf

6. Cost comparison Manual weeding/ha Cost Herbicide Usage + Hand weeding Cost First weeding 25 DAP 15x 80 = 1200 Any one of pre-emergence herbicide 2x325=650 Second weeding 40 DAP 10 x 80 = 800 Hand weeding 10x80=800 Total= 2000 1450

12. Classification based on Age Sl. No Age(in years) No of farmers Percentage 1. <30 4 13.33 2. 31 – 40 11 36.67 3. 41 - 50 13 43.33 4. > 50 2 6.67 Total = 30 100

13. Classification based on Education SI. No Educational level No of farmers Percentage 1. School 26 86.67 2. Graduate 2 6.67 3. Post graduate - 0 4. Illiterate 2 6.67 Total = 30 100

14. Classification based on Occupation SI. No Occupation No of farmers Percentage 1. Agriculture only 28 93.3 2. Agriculture + business 2 6.7 Total = 30 100

15. Classification based on Farming Experience SI. No Farming experience No of farmers percentage 1. <10 3 10 2. 11-20 11 36.67 3. 21-30 14 46.67 4. >30 2 6.67 Total = 30 100

16. Classification based on Land holding Sl. No Size of Land Holding (in ac) Number of Farmers Percentage 1. < 2.5 21 70.00 2. 2.51 – 5.0 7 23.33 3. 5.01 – 10 2 6.67 Total = 30 100

17. Mode of purchase Sl. No Mode of Purchase Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Cash 22 73.33 2. credit 2 6.67 3. Cash +Credit 6 20.00 Total= 30 100

19. Awareness about HIJACK SI.NO Awareness No of Farmers Percentage 1. Aware 11 36.67 2. Not Aware 19 63.33 Total= 30 100

20. Source of Information SI. No Source of Information Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Dealers 8 72.72 2. Peer group --- 0 3. Company Rep/Field Demo 2 18.18 4. Media/Advertisements 1 9.09 Total = 11 100

21. Users of product HIJACK SI. No Usage Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Users 7 23.33 2. Non-Users 23 76.67 Total = 30 100

22. Product identification By Farmers SI. No Mode of identification Number of Farmers Percentage 1. Packaging material 2 28.57 2. Company Name -- 0 3. Trade Name 5 71.43 Total = 7 100

24. Rank Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Dealers 0.71 0.25 - - - - - - - 96.00 Comp.Rep.guidance - 0.25 0.55 - - - - - - 80.00 Good quality - - - 0.095 - - - - - 0.90 Advertisement 0.28 0.38 0.13 - - - - - - 79.00 Friends guidance - - - - 0.079 - - - - 0.79 Brand loyalty - - - - - - - - - - Ease availability - - - - 0.16 - - - - 16.00 Low price - - - 0.19 - - - - - 19.00 Credit facility - - - - - - - - - -

25. Purchase influenced factors ranking Factors Rank Dealers 1 Company .Rep.guidance 2 Advertisement 3 Low price 4 Ease availability 5 Good quality 6 Friends guidance 7

26. Rank Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Not aware 0.82 - - - - - - - - 82 High price - - - - - - - - - 0 Satisfied with presently using product 0.13 0.35 0.17 - - - - - 65 Not available locally - 0.12 0.07 - 0.10 - - - - 29 Not available in time - - 0.07 0.09 - - - - - 16 Ineffective - - - - - - - - - 0 Dealers rec . other product - 0.43 0.4 - - - - - - 83 No credit facility 0.04 - - - - - - - - 4 Lack of guidance in Use - - - - - - - - - 0

27. Factors influencing ranked for non-purchase Factors Rank Dealer recommended other product 1 Not aware 2 Satisfied with presently using product 3 Not available locally 4 Not available in time 5 No credit facility 6

29. Perception about the product SI.NO Perception Number of farmers Percentage 1. Fair 2 28.6 2. Some what better 4 57.1 3. Same like others 1 14.3 4. Poor - - Total = 7 100

30. Perceptual Mapping Analysis price low High low High Credit facility HIJACK ATTRATAP ROUNDUP

32. Expectation of Farmers SI. No Expectation Number of farmers Percentage 1 Making available in time 3 42.9 2 Reducing price comparatively 1 14.3 3 Educating the Dealers - 0.0 4 Reducing the toxicity 2 28.6 Total = 7 100