







































 

 

 
1 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

MARKET IDENTIFICATION, OPPORTUNITIES, AND PROFITABILITY FOR THE 
SELECTED SEASONAL FRUITS IN THE CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS AREA OF 
BANGLADESH   

 

 

 Md Jahurul Islam1+ 

 M Kamruzzaman2 

 Md. Jamal Uddin3 

 

1Khulna Agricultural University, Department of Agricultural Economics, 
Khulna, Bangladesh. 
Email: jahurul.bsmrau@gmail.com Tel: +88-01715299022 
2Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, 
Department of Agricultural Economics, Salna, Gazipur, Bangladesh. 
Email: kzamanau@yahoo.com Tel: +88-02-9205339 
3Regional Agricultural Research Station, BARI, Hathazari, Chattagram, 
Bangladesh. 
Email: jamaluddin1971@yahoo.com Tel: +8801815425857 

 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 28 October 2021 
Revised: 30 November 2021 
Accepted: 15 December 2021 
Published: 17 January 2022  
 

Keywords 
Chittagong hill tracts  
Seasonal fruits 
Marketing channel 
Market opportunities 
Marketing profitability 
Marketing efficiency. 

 
The study attempts to analyze suitable markets, market opportunities, and the 
estimation of the profitability of the selected seasonal fruits for the market 
intermediaries in Chittagong hill tracts of Bangladesh. The study was conducted at the 
CHT region such as; Bandarban and Rangamati district and some parts of the 
Chattagram region to document the socio-economic profile of the market actors of 
selected fruits and identify the suitable market opportunities and profitability of those 
fruits in the market. The chosen samples included 86 market actors. In the study area 
combined, 90% of Aratdar took formal education among all the market actors. In the 
case of education, 35% of market actors were found who have the level of education 
from primary to SSC, and 30% had primary education, 29% intermediaries were found 
to have finished their SSC level. The frequent and common variety sent to various 
markets was the Rangui variety of mango as the productions of other types were not 
more to supply. It was also observed that other fruits like jackfruit and litchi were sold 
more in the local market than supplying it to the distant market. When estimating 
growers' share, the study found the dominant channel for mango, jackfruit, and litchi to 
be the same (farmer- Faria-consumer), 64%, 38%, and 57%, respectively. The efficient 
marketing channel for mango (2.17) was (farmer-Bepari-Aratdar-retailer-consumer). 
For jackfruit, (farmer-Bepari-Aratdar-consumer) was found to have an efficient channel 
(1.27), and for litchi, (farmer-Faria-consumer) had the highest marketing efficiency 
(2.00).  
 

Contribution/Originality: There is a dearth of studies regarding the marketing system and efficiency of 

seasonal fruits in the hilly areas of Bangladesh. This study is one of the few studies which identified the marketing 

channel, opportunities and profitability of the seasonal fruits for the market actors in the hilly areas of the 

Chattagram region of Bangladesh.  

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Chittagong Hill Tract, in southeastern Bangladesh, is the only sizeable hilly region in the country. They 

encompass an area of 13,184 square kilometers, with 92% highland, 2% medium highland, 1% medium lowland, and 

5% residential areas and bodies of water. The CHT has roughly 1.35 million people, with about 51% indigenous 

people living in the frequently isolated upland areas [1].  

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2022 Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-12. 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/cras.v9i1.2900 
© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0574-1508
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5084-6854
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8065-8552
mailto:jahurul.bsmrau@gmail.com
mailto:kzamanau@yahoo.com
mailto:jamaluddin1971@yahoo.com
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/cras.v9i1.2900


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
2 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

For the past decade, mango, jackfruit, litchi, papaya, and watermelon have been the fruits of choice for mass-

scale production in Bandarban, Rangamati, and Khagrachhari. The area has turned into a seasonal fruit hub with 

vast potentiality for expanding a food-processing sector. However, there is still a reliance on a centuries-old 

practice of intermediaries in the fruit trade [2]. These dealers go out to the cultivators a few weeks before harvest 

to negotiate prices for all products. They transport the produce to cities, where it is sold to smaller vendors. This 

strategy restricts the options available to farmers. At the same time, urbanites continue to charge exorbitant rates, 

implying that a significant portion of the fruits' value is pocketed somewhere along the road [2]. 

Fruit growers make a sizeable contribution to fruits production. Low volumes (minimal marketable surplus), 

poor quality, inconsistent supplies, and other factors limit their access to formalized markets. Simultaneously, local 

markets for the products are limited, forcing them to sell their products in far-flung urban and export markets, 

adding to their expensive transportation and marketing costs. Intermediaries such as assemblers, wholesalers, sub-

wholesalers, commission agents, and retailers control existing supply chains. Producers can get as little as one-third 

to one-half of the final price in some instances, reflecting substantial marketing costs and margins [3]. Institutions 

such as cooperatives and commodity associations reduce marketing and transaction costs and risks by providing 

''markets'' to the producers at their doorsteps. Transforming smallholder self-sustaining (non-market-oriented) 

agriculture into dynamic market-oriented sectors can create multiplier effects towards other sectors. This transition 

can enhance the non-farm sector by creating jobs and boosting income. Backward and forward production linkages 

and linkages emerging from improved revenues in the agricultural and non-farm sectors are examples of linkages. 

Presently, the rising demand for these seasonal commodities is allowing producers, particularly smallholder 

farmers, to diversify into commodities with a significant possibility of increased returns on land, labor, and capital. 

Nevertheless, due to a lack of access to inputs and outputs, capital, technology, extension services, skills, 

natural resources (land, water), and other factors, there is concern regarding smallholder producers' ability to 

participate in market-oriented production [3]. So, identifying the suitable markets, market opportunities, and the 

estimation of the profitability of the selected seasonal fruits will reveal the market advantages for the market actors 

eventually. In light of the factors mentioned earlier, the current study was conducted for the three significant 

seasonal fruits (mango, jackfruits, and litchi) with the following purposes in mind. 

i. To document the socioeconomic profile of the market actors in the study area. 

ii. To identify the suitable market, marketing opportunities, and profitability for those fruits in the market. 

 

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 

As many researchers analyzed the marketing chain of fruits, identification of marketing channel, and the crucial 

problems affecting the market intermediaries, this study, in particular, addressed the marketing channel for the 

marketing intermediaries, marketing opportunities, and profitability across different chains in the study areas.  

Some studies dealt with the marketing performances, marketing margin of fruits, growth in output, and trend 

analysis of major fruits in the CHT region [4-6]. Other studies found the production and growth rate of fruits, 

marketable and marketed surplus of fruits, socio-economic status of mango producers, etc. [7-9]. 

Tadesse, in his study, evaluated the marketing system for fruits, identification of marketing channels, 

quantification of marketing cost, and margin for fruits. He also suggested an apposite policy to develop the fruits 

marketing system in Ethiopia [4]. Marketing performance assessment for fruits plays a significant part in an 

ongoing or future fruit development plan to promote growth, economic development, food security, and poverty 

alleviation [4]. Market actors play a crucial role in ensuring a smooth marketing system, and their role is 

undoubtedly significant in the market development of any commodity. Dewan [7] in her study, found four types of 

intermediaries involved in the fruit marketing system. Her study revealed that the production growth rate for 

mango was highest in the study area, whereas banana records the negative growth rate in the hilly area [7]. 

Farmers with limited resources invest less in farming inputs such as insecticides and fertilizers, resulting in poorer 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
3 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

yields and inferior quality goods Aujla, et al. [5]. Aujla, et al. [5] found that due to a lack of storage and 

transportation facilities, 25-40% of post-harvest losses occurred, reducing supply and putting increased pressure on 

pricing. Uddin, et al. [6] performed research on the output growth and trend analysis of significant fruits in the 

hilly areas of the Chattagram region. The study found out the factors which contributed to output growth, and it 

revealed that the area for all the fruits increased, and the highest increase was for guava and the lowest increase in 

area for jackfruit. The study recommends that to augment the growth rate of fruits, enhanced variety and 

management practices should be spread through special programs and reinforcing research and extension links in 

this region [6].  A lack of transportation, exploitation by intermediaries, and market information impeded the 

feasibility and profitability of AIVs businesses [10]. Producer groups were linked to formal and informal 

marketplaces through marketing models relevant to all actors in the value chain to overcome these flaws [10]. 

According to a cost-benefit analysis of mango production, ten mango cultivars are lucrative with amplified working 

capital and human labor development. Mango farming has a higher cost of harvesting, sorting, and grading than 

other crops. Although respondents agreed that the Rajshahi district is profitable in mango production, more 

research into different variables and characteristics is needed [9]. After reviewing all of the above studies, it can be 

noted that there is a shortage of adequate research in the Chittagong Hill Tracts on the marketing system of 

seasonal fruits. This study will address the research gap by identifying the marketing channel and profitability of 

the seasonal fruits for the market actors in the hilly areas of the Chattagram region of Bangladesh.  

 

3. METHODOLOGY 

3.1. Study Site Selection 

Since choosing the study area is a crucial step, it largely depends upon the study's objectives. Based on the high 

concentration of fruits production and cultivation, the hilly areas, i.e., Bandarban and Rangamati districts, were 

chosen to fulfill the study purpose. 

 

3.2. Sampling Techniques 

Market intermediaries such as; Faria, Bepari, Aratdar, wholesalers, and retailers make up the population of this 

study. To accomplish the aim of the study, the researcher used stratified random sampling to obtain data from 

market actors. 86 intermediaries or market actors were selected randomly from Bandarban and Rangamati districts 

and the different parts of the Chittagong and Feni region of the country Table 1. 

 

Table 1. Sample distribution of market actor. 

R
e
sp

o
n

d
e
n

t Bandarban Rangamati Chittagong & Feni zone Total 

M
a
n

g
o

 

J
a
c
k

fr
u

it
 

L
it

c
h

i 

M
a
n

g
o

 

J
a
c
k

fr
u

it
 

L
it

c
h

i 

M
a
n

g
o

 

J
a
c
k

fr
u

it
 

L
it

c
h

i 

M
a
n

g
o

 

J
a
c
k

fr
u

it
 

L
it

c
h

i 

Faria 4 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 7 3 2 
Wholesaler 3 1 1 4 1 4 1 0 1 8 2 6 

Retailer 6 1 2 5 2 4 1 0 1 12 3 7 
Bepari 8 2 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 12 6 3 

Aratdar 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 3 5 7 3 
All 21 5 6 16 9 10 7 7 5 44 21 21 

 

 

3.3 Collection of Data  

The primary data were collected through personal interviews with the respondents using an interview schedule 

in the study. The researcher himself collected data from the market intermediaries such as; Faria, Bepari, Aratdar, 

wholesalers, and retailers. Primary data were collected from the hilly areas of the Chattagram region such as; 

Bandarban, and Rangamati districts and some parts of Chattagram city from May 2016 to August 2016. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
4 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.3.1. Data Collection from Intermediaries 

The intermediaries refer to those people who act between the fruits growers and consumers. The important 

intermediaries are ‘Faria,' 'Bepari,' 'Aratdar,' 'Wholesaler,' and retailer. Information was collected on trade volume, 

marketing costs (depreciation on investment capital, interest on running capital, transport cost, commission, market 

toll, wastage, etc.), mode of sales, purchase and sale prices, price formation, gross and net margins, and marketing 

constraints, etc. For Bepari, Faria, Wholesaler, and retailers, similar methods were followed. Among these 

intermediaries, Bepari, and Wholesaler, they transport fruits to other districts in the country. 

 

3.4. Data Analysis and Analytical Techniques 

Data obtained from questionnaires and interviews were coded where appropriate, entered into a Microsoft 

EXCEL database system and analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software. Average and percentage ratios were 

estimated using the EXCEL sheet. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the variables.  

 

3.4.1. Marketing Opportunities and Profitability for Market Actor 

3.4.1.1. Marketing Cost of Market Actor 

The marketing costs mainly include costs for various market operations like transportation, loading and 

unloading, market toll, rents, staff salary, electricity, generator cost, commission, wastage, depreciation, and other 

miscellaneous expenses. The items of the marketing costs vary with the type of intermediaries.  

The Total marketing cost incurred by the farmers and intermediaries in a channel is estimated by the following 

formula: 

C = Cf + Cm1 + Cm2 + Cm3 +……………………+ Cmi 

C = Total cost of fruits marketing in a channel. 

Cf = Cost paid by the producer when commodity moves. 

Cmi = Cost incurred by the ith middlemen in buying and selling fruits in a channel. (I = 1, 2, 3……………………n) 

 

3.4.1.2. Marketing Margin of Market Actor 

The following formula estimated the marketing margin:  

Marketing Margin (Tk/kg) = Sales price (Tk/Kg) – Purchase price (Tk/Kg)  

The following formula calculated the net marketing margins of the intermediaries (after physical losses): 

Net marketing margin (Value Addition) = Sales price - (Purchase price + Marketing cost) 

 

3.4.1.3. Marketing Performance 

Marketing performance is evaluated using different measures of marketing efficiency as described by Shepherd 

[11]; Hugar and Hiremath [12] and Acharya and Agarwal [13]. The present study will investigate marketing 

efficiency by examining price spread, growers’ share, and Acharya’s methods for estimating efficiency. The methods 

for studying these estimates are given in the following. 

Price spread 

Price spread = Price paid by consumers – Price received by the growers 

Grower’s share 

 

Acharya’s method for estimating marketing efficiency. 

In this method, the marketing efficiency will measure using the following formula: 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
5 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

Where, 

FP = Prices received by the farmer.  

MC = Total marketing cost. 

MM = Net marketing margin. 

 

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Market Intermediaries  

The analysis on this demographic characteristic highlighted that the average age of types of intermediaries was 

37 years to 42 years. Age is a crucial factor in skill development and enhancing marketing decisions. Literate people 

can have better access to the relevant information regarding food and livelihood security. It is observed from the 

study that among the market actors, 72% of Faria had formal education while 28% were illiterate. Among 

wholesalers, 85% had formal education, and 15% were illiterate. Among retailers, 83% had formal education, and 

their education ratio was more between primary to SSC. In the case of Bepari, 80% had formal education, and they 

also had the same higher ratio of education level between primary to SSC like the retailer. The highest education 

ratio was observed for Aratdar, and the study revealed that 90% of Aratdar took formal education, and only 10% 

were illiterate (Table 2). In all categories of market intermediaries, Bengali and Chakma were the distinct groups. 

Bengali were more in number in all groups than any other ethnic group. The only exceptions were in the group of 

Bepari, where Bengali, Chakma, and Bawm communities had involved themselves in trade. 

 

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of market intermediaries. 

Characteristics 
Market Intermediaries 

Faria Wholesaler Retailer Bepari Aratdar 

Age (years) 37 42 42 41 41 

Ethnic Characteristics (%) 
Bengali  57 69 83 60 100 
Chakma  43 31 17 7 0 
Marma  0 0 0 0 0 
Bawm  0 0 0 33 0 

Gender (in %) 
Male 100 100 100 100 100 
Female 0 0 0 0 0 

Marital Status (%) 
Single 0 15 22 20 0 
Married 100 85 78 80 100 

Level of education (%) 
Illiterate 29 15 17 20 10 
Primary 43 23 22 20 40 
Primary to SSC 29 31 33 33 50 
SSC 0 31 28 27 0 
HSC 0 0 0 0 0 
Graduation or above 0 0 0 0 0 

Family size (average) 5 5 5 5 5 
 

 

4.2. Market Identification for Seasonal Fruits 

Several market places were identified in the study areas where seasonal fruits were rigorously sold. In the case 

of mango for Bandarban, the local markets where Faria and Bepari would bring and sell their product was 

Bandarban Sadar market, Balaghata Bazar. The Bepari would bring his product were in different parts of 

Chittagong city: Satkania, Keranihat, Dohazari, Cox’s Bazar, BRTC market, etc. Figure 1. The frequent and 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
6 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

common variety sent to various markets was the Rangui variety of mango as the productions of other types were 

not more to supply. It was also observed that other fruits like jackfruit and litchi were sold more in the local market 

than supplying it to the distant market. Farmer and the market actors could not profit, sending this to the other 

remote market as the marketing costs demand more for these fruits than increasing its production. In Rangamati, 

demand for mango variety like Amrapali was more as it produced more in number. But, this year, this variety meets 

up lesser need than the previous years as the productions were not higher to mention. So, the price was higher in 

the market for this variety. 

There are other mango varieties that were sold in the local market, such as; Rangamati Banarupa Bazar, 

Ranirhat Bazar, Rauzan market, etc. This year the jackfruit and pineapple production were more in Rangamati than 

any other fruits. Market actors like Faria and Bepari were more in Ghagra Bazar for selling jackfruit and pineapple. 

Most of the fruit growers were found who would bring these fruits directly into the market to sell. The other 

suitable market for seasonal fruits (Specially Jackfruit and pineapple) from Rangamati was sent through Bepari in 

the market like Chittagong Amin market, Bohoddar hat Bazar, Firingi Bazar, BRTC market, etc. Some market 

actors (Specially Bepari), both from Bandarban and Rangamati, sold their fruits in the feni and Dhaka markets 

Figure 1. Though this number was not so high, they would send more in this distant market if the market actors 

got some incentives. 

 

 
Figure 1. Identification of the market for the selected fruits by the market actors. 

 

4.3. Marketing Performance and Opportunities  

4.3.1. Marketing Cost of Market Intermediaries  

Tables 3, 4, and 5 indicate different marketing costs related to the transaction of mango, jackfruit, and litchi by 

Faria, wholesaler, retailer, Bepari, and Aratdar. As in the study areas, most Farias sold their fruits to a distant place 

to get a better price. It was observed from Table 3 that, in the case of mango, among all the cost items, the market 

charge and fee were more significant than the other items. In the case of a wholesaler, retailer, and Aratdar, 

transportation cost was higher than the other items. In contrast, in the case of Bepari, depreciation cost was higher 

among all the items of marketing cost. In Table 4, except for wholesalers, the marketing cost of jackfruit was higher 

for Faria, retailer, Bepari, and Aratdar.  Overall, the marketing cost of jackfruit was higher for Faria than the other 

market actors. In Table 5, it was observed that, in the case of litchi, the market fee and the toll were higher in 

amount for Faria and wholesaler than the other cost items. Also, the rent and maintenance fee was higher for 

retailers and Aratdar than the other items for litchi. From Table 5, it can be said that depreciation cost was higher 

than any other items for Bepari in the case of litchi marketing. Overall, it can be interpreted from Table 4 that the 

cost of litchi marketing was more significant for wholesalers than other market actors. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
7 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 3. Total Cost of Mango marketing of different market actors (Tk. /ton). 

SL. No. Cost Items Market intermediaries 

Faria Wholesaler Retailer Bepari Aratdar 

1 Transportation 1692.86 4075 3275 925 2200 
2 Packing 78.57 300 244.167 178 20 
3 Loading/Unloading 0 494 620.84 292.42 202 
4 Grading 0 62.5 92 10 24 
5 Labor 9.28 441.25 560.84 597.25 130 
6 Sweeper 0 307.5 280 2.75 0 
7 Guard 0 62.5 41.67 0 0 
8 Weight 48.57 0 0 11 0 
9 Depreciation 657.15 2106.25 1612.50 1248.75 1960 

10 Market Charge & Fee 2142.85 870.625 792.92 736.25 336 
11 Rent 0 1000 925 144 1550 
12 Electricity 0 435 398.34 38 480 
13 Submit 225 21.25 68.34 0 0 
14 Generator 0 71 105.67 5 50 
15 Aratdar cost 0 34.37 22.92 75 0 
16 Personal 203.57 211.37 220 115.34 140 
17 Mobile 171.43 12.875 131.25 80.92 100 
18 Others 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total 5229.286 10614.25 9391.167 18601.2 7191 
 

 

Table 4. Total Cost of Jackfruit Marketing of different market intermediaries (Tk/’00 no.) 

SL. No. Cost Items Market intermediaries 

Faria Wholesaler Retailer Bepari Aratdar 

1 Transportation 350 450 633.33 783.33 842.857 
2 Packing 0 0 0 0 0 
3 Loading/Unloading 0 145 246.67 383.33 151.43 
4 Grading 0 0 0 0 0 
5 Labour 83.34 15 243.33 308.33 357.14 
6 Sweeper 0 150 100 0 0 
7 Guard 0 0 0 8.33 0 
8 Weight 0 0 0 0 0 
9 Depreciation 216.67 300 366.67 308.33 207.14 
10 Market Tool 283.34 550 483.33 386.17 168.57 
11 Rent 0 275 533.33 66.67 500 
12 Electricity 0 475 166.67 0 307.14 
13 Submit 150 25 16.67 0 0.72 
14 Generator 0 225 23.33 0 26.43 
15 Aratdar cost 0 0 0 0 0 
16 Personal 183.34 200 141.67 113.34 146.43 
17 Mobile 150 125 111.67 67.83 100 
18 Others 0 0 0 0 0 
 Total 1416.67 2935 3066.66 2425.67 2643.571 

 

 

4.3.2. Marketing Margin of Market Intermediaries   

In this study, the gross marketing margin of each trader was estimated by deducting the purchase price of 

fruits (mango, jackfruit, and litchi) from the sale price. In contrast, the net margin/profit component was estimated 

by deducting the marketing cost from the gross marketing margin. Table 6 represents the marketing margin of 

three mango varieties. The highest net margin for Amrapali variety was Tk. 24771 per ton, received by Faria, and 

their profits were higher than others. In the case of the Rangui variety, while the gross margin received by Bepari is 

higher than the other actors, the net margin or profit was more significant for the retailer (Tk. 10609 per ton) than 

the other actors. But in the case of the local variety of mango, the net margin was higher for Faria than the other 

market actors. It can be interpreted finally that, net margin of Bepari was smaller than the other market actors in all 

three varieties of mango. The same method was followed to estimate the marketing margin of jackfruit for market 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
8 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

intermediaries as mango intermediaries. Here, the net marketing margin of Faria was higher than other 

intermediaries when they supplied jackfruit in the market (Table 7), and the amount of net margin or profit was Tk. 

1883 per 100 pieces. Here, the standard sizeable jackfruit was considered for estimation purposes. The same thing 

happened on litchi intermediaries. There were few differences in marketing margin between litchi intermediaries. 

According to the result, the highest net margin was received by Bepari for litchi trading (Table 8). The actual 

situation in other cases may be different because intermediaries handle the additional volume of fruits, and after that 

actual difference in marketing margin will be caused to happen. 

 

Table 5. Total Cost of litchi marketing of different market intermediaries (Tk. / 000 no.) 

SL. No. Cost Items 
Market intermediaries 

Faria Wholesaler Retailer Bepari Aratdar 

1 Transportation 175 200 46.43 183.34 216.67 
2 Packing 37.5 44.17 34.28 45 38.33 
3 Loading/Unloading 0 158.33 44.28 0 50 
4 Grading 0 0 6.43 0 23.34 
5 Labor 0 20.83 0 150 55 
6 Sweeper 0 15 21.43 0 0 
7 Guard 0 0 14.28 0 0 
8 Weight 0 0 0 0 0 
9 Depreciation 175 200 117.14 250 133.34 
10 Market Toll and fee 225 258.33 214.28 175 216.67 
11 Rent and Maintenance 0 300 250 0 416.67 
12 Electricity 0 191.67 235.72 0 96.67 
13 Submit 27.5 12.5 2.86 16.67 0 
14 Generator 0 44.17 42.14 0 75 
15 Aratdar cost 0 0 0 0 0 
16 Personal 112.5 133.14 121.43 91.67 150 
17 Mobile 110 97.5 102.86 108.34 116.67 
18 Others 0 0 0 0 0 
 Total 862.5 1667.5 1253.57 1020 900.68 

 

 

Table 6. Marketing margin of different mango intermediaries (in BDT). 

For Amrapali variety 

Sl. No. Particulars 
Market intermediaries 

Faria Wholesaler Retailer Bepari Aratdar 

a. Purchase price 45000 55000 75000 40000 60000 
b. Sale price 75000 70000 90000 60000 75000 
c. Gross margin(b-a) 30000 15000 15000 20000 15000 
d. Marketing cost 5229.286 10614.25 9391.167 18601.2 7191 
e. Net margin (c-d) 24771 4386 5608.83 1399 7809 

(For Rangui Variety) 

a. Purchase price 25000 40000 40000 20000 40000 
b. Sale price 40000 55000 60000 40000 50000 
c. Gross margin(b-a) 15000 15000 20000 20000 10000 
d. Marketing cost 5229.286 10614.25 9391.167 18601.2 7191 
e. Net margin (c-d) 9770.72 4385.75 10608.83 1398.8 2809 

(For Local variety) 
a. Purchase price 30000 45000 50000 30000 0 
b. Sale price 50000 60000 70000 50000 0 
c. Gross margin(b-a) 20000 15000 20000 20000 0 
d. Marketing cost 5229.286 10614.25 9391.167 18601.2 0 
e. Net margin (c-d) 14770.72 4385.75 10608.83 1398.8 0 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
9 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 7. Marketing margin of different jackfruit intermediaries (in BDT). 

Market 
intermediaries 

a. Purchase price 
(100 piece) 

b. Sales price 
(100 pieces) 

c. Gross 
margin(b-a) 

d. Marketing 
cost 

e.Net margin 
(c-d) 

Faria 2000 5300 3300 1416.67 1883.33 
Wholesaler 2800 6000 3200 3135 65 

Retailer 5300 10000 4700 3233.33 1466.67 
Bepari 2000 5000 3500 3280.67 219.33 

Aratdar 5000 7000 2000 1843.571 156.43 
 

 

Table 8. Marketing margin of different litchi intermediaries (in BDT). 

Market 
intermediaries 

 
Litchi 

Variety 

a. Purchase 
price (100 

piece) 

b. Sales 
price (100 

pieces) 

c. Gross 
margin(b-a) 

d. Marketing 
cost 

e.Net margin 
(c-d) 

Faria 
China 3 2000 3500 1000 862.5 138 

China 2 1500 2500 1000 862.5 138 

Wholesaler 
China 3 2000 3800 1800 1667.5 133 

China 2 1200 3000 1800 1667.5 133 

Retailer 
China 3 3500 5000 1500 1254 246 

China 2 2500 4000 1500 1254 246 

Bepari 
China 3 1500 3000 1500 1020 480 

China 2 1200 2500 1300 1020 280 

Aratdar 
China 3 3000 4000 1000 900.68 99.32 

China 2 2500 3500 1000 900.68 99.32 
 

 

4.4. Marketing Efficiency 

Marketing efficiency is a measure of market performance. The movement of goods from producers to the 

ultimate consumers at the lowest possible cost consistent with the service desired by the consumers is termed 

efficient marketing [14].  Here, in case of estimating price spread, growers' share, and marketing efficiency, 

averages of prices of three mango varieties have been counted. For litchi, the China-3 type has been calculated 

for estimation purposes. 

 

4.4.1. Price Spread 

For measuring marketing efficiency, price spread is an important measure. According to the research result, the 

price spread was highest when mango was transferred by the channel [Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong 

market) – Retailer – Consumer], and the amount was TK. 32400. For comparing different channels, the price 

spread of all other possible channels was calculated and presented in Table 9. The price spread was highest for 

jackfruit marketing in the (Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer) channel (Tk.8000 per 100 pieces). For litchi 

marketing, the highest price spread was seen in the [Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) – Retailer 

(Chittagong) – Consumer] channel, which was Tk. 3500 per 1000 pieces. 

 

4.4.2. Grower’s Share 

Grower’s share is another important measure of marketing efficiency. Results showed that the grower’s share 

was highest in the (Farmer – Faria – Consumer) channel during mango marketing (63.64 %) (Table 10). During 

jackfruit supply, fruit growers also share highest in (Farmer – Faria– Consumer) channel which was 38%. And the 

same case happened for the litchi growers. Litchi growers got the largest share in the (Farmer – Faria – Consumer) 

channel (57 %). So, for all the three fruits, the common channel where growers' share ranked high was (Farmer – 

Faria – consumer channel) (Table 10). 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
10 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.4.3. Acharya’s Method for Estimating Marketing Efficiency 

The performance of marketing was assessed based on Acharya’s formula of marketing efficiency. Results (Table 

11) showed that for mango marketing, the most efficient marketing channel was [Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar 

(Chittagong market) – Retailer – Consumer)] and that was 2.17. In the case of jackfruit marketing, the most 

efficient channel was [Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong market) – Consumer (Chittagong)], and it was 1.27 

Table 11. For litchi marketing, the efficient channel was (Farmer – Faria – Consumer), and the marketing efficiency 

was 2.00 higher than the other channel. 

 

Table 9. Price Spread in marketing channel of fruits (mango, jackfruit, and litchi). 

Marketing channel 
Price received 

by fruit growers 
(in BDT) 

Price paid by 
consumers (in 

BDT) 

Price Spread 
(in BDT) 

Mango per ton  
Farmer – Faria – Consumer 35000 55000 20000 
Farmer – Faria – Retailer - Consumer 35000 73000 38000 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong market) – 
Retailer – Consumer 

30000 73000 43000 

Farmer – Bepari – Wholesaler (Feni market) – 
Retailer – Consumer 

30000 62000 32000 

Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 30000 50000 20000 

Jackfruit per 100 pieces  

Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 2000 6000 4000 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong market) – 
Consumer (Chittagong) 

2000 7000 5000 

Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 2000 10000 8000 
Farmer – Faria - Consumer 2000 5300 3300 

Litchi per 1000 pieces  
Farmer – Faria – Consumer 2000 3500 1500 
Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 2000 5000 3000 
Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 1500 3000 1500 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) – Retailer 
(Chittagong) – Consumer 

1500 5000 3500 

Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) – Consumer 1500 4000 2500 
 

 

Table 10. Growers share (%) in marketing channel of fruits (mango, jackfruit, and litchi). 

Marketing channel 
Price received by 
fruit growers (in 

BDT) 

Price paid by 
consumers (in 

BDT) 

Growers 
Share (%) 

Mango per ton  
Farmer – Faria – Consumer 35000 55000 63.64 
Farmer – Faria – Retailer - Consumer 35000 73000 47.95 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong market) – 
Retailer – Consumer 

30000 73000 41.09 

Farmer – Bepari – Wholesaler (Feni market) – Retailer – 
Consumer 

30000 62000 48.38 

Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 30000 50000 60 

Jackfruit per 100 pieces  

Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 2000 6000 33.33 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong market) – 
Consumer (Chittagong) 

2000 7000 28.57 

Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 2000 10000 20 
Farmer – Faria - Consumer 2000 5300 37.74 

Litchi per 1000 pieces  

Farmer – Faria – Consumer 2000 3500 57.14 
Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 2000 5000 40 
Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 1500 3000 50 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) – Retailer 
(Chittagong) – Consumer 

1500 5000 30 

Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) – Consumer 1500 4000 37.5 
 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
11 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 11. Acharya’s marketing efficiency of various channels in fruits (mango, jackfruit, and litchi) marketing. 

Marketing channel 
Price received 

by fruit growers 
(in BDT) 

Total 
marketing 

cost (in BDT) 

Net Marketing 
margin (in BDT) 

Marketing 
Efficiency 

Mango per ton  
Farmer – Faria – Consumer 35000 5229.286 16437.48 1.62 
Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 35000 9391.167 8942.16 1.91 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong 
market) – Retailer – Consumer 

30000 9291.08 4549.98 
 

2.17 
Farmer – Bepari – Wholesaler (Feni 
market) – Retailer – Consumer 

30000 
 

12868.87 
5545.66 

 
1.63 

Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 30000 18601.2 1399 1.49 

Jackfruit per 100 pieces  

Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 2000 3280.67 219.33 0.57 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong 
market) – Consumer (Chittagong) 

3500 
 

2562.12 
187.88 

 
1.27 

Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 3650 2325 1675 0.91 
Farmer – Faria - Consumer 2000 1417 1883 0.61 

Litchi per 1000 pieces  
Farmer – Faria – Consumer 2000 862.5 137.5 2.00 
Farmer – Faria – Retailer – Consumer 3650 2325 1675 0.91 
Farmer – Bepari – Consumer 1500 1020 480 1.00 
Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) 
– Retailer (Chittagong) – Consumer 

1500 1253.57 246.43 1.00 

Farmer – Bepari – Aratdar (Chittagong) 
- Consumer 

1500 900.68 99.32 1.50 
 

 

5. CONCLUSION 

The majority of the market actors depends mainly on agricultural activities and engage themselves thoroughly 

in the production and marketing of seasonal fruits. The most common mango variety transported to various 

markets was the Rangui type, as the displays of other varieties were in short supply. Other fruits, such as jackfruit 

and litchi, were also more popular at the local market than in the distant market. For mango (Rangui variety), the 

retailer's net margin or profit was more significant than the other actors. In contrast, the net marketing margin of 

Faria was higher when they supplied jackfruit in the market. Also, the highest net margin was received by Bepari 

for litchi trading. The most efficient marketing channel for mango was “farmer-Bepari-Aratdar-retailer-consumer.” 

Whereas for jackfruit, (farmer-Bepari-Aratdar-consumer) was found to have an efficient channel, and for litchi, 

(farmer-Faria-consumer) had the highest marketing efficiency.  

 

Funding: This study is funded by Bangladesh Krishi Gobeshona Endowment Trust (BKGET) under Krishi 
Gobeshona Foundation (KGF), Dhaka. The funding number is Commissioned Research Program (CRP-IV). 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] Daily Asian Age, "Prospects of hill fruits of Chittagong hill tracts. Retrieved from 

https://dailyasianage.com/news/253912/prospects-of-hill-fruits-of-chittagong-hill-tracts," 2021. 

[2] The Daily Star, "CHT fruit growers given short end of the stick. Retrieved from 

https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/cht-fruit-growers-given-short-end-the-stick-1895824," 2020. 

[3] Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, Linking producers to markets programme. South Africa: Directorate 

Marketing: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2012. 

[4] A. Tadesse, Market chain analysis of fruits for gomma woreda, Jima zone, Oromia national regional state. Haramaya: 

Haramaya University, 2011. 

http://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/cht-fruit-growers-given-short-end-the-stick-1895824,


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 1-12 

 

 
12 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[5] K. M. Aujla, M. Abbas, K. Mahmood, and S. Saadullah, "Marketing system of fruits, margins and export potential in 

Pakistan," Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 34-39, 2007. 

[6] M. J. Uddin, S. Dey, and T. Taslim, "Trend and output growth analysis of major fruits in Chittagong region of 

Bangladesh," Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 41, pp. 137-150, 2016.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v41i1.27679. 

[7] B. Dewan, "Scenario of major fruits production and marketing system in Chittagong hill tracts: Study based on 

Khagrachari Hill District, Bangladesh," International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, vol. 3, pp. 966-

977, 2015. 

[8] M. J. Islam, "Contextual estimation of marketable and marketed surplus of selected seasonal fruits: A study based on 

Chittagong Hill tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh," International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, vol. 6, pp. 21-32, 

2019.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.70.2019.61.21.32. 

[9] A. Y. Sampa, M. A. Alam, M. A. Latif, and M. M. Islam, "Socio-economic status and rationale of mango cultivation 

based on some selected areas in Rajshahi district of Bangladesh," Research in Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries, vol. 6, 

pp. 79-90, 2019.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3329/ralf.v6i1.41389. 

[10] G. Muhanji, R. L. Roothaert, C. Webo, and M. Stanley, "African indigenous vegetable enterprises and market access 

for small-scale farmers in East Africa," International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 9, pp. 194-202, 

2011.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0561. 

[11] G. Shepherd, Marketing of farm products. Iowa: Iowa State University Press, USA, 1972. 

[12] L. B. Hugar and K. C. Hiremath, "Efficiency of alternative channels in the marketing of vegetables in Belgium City," 

Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 39, pp. 192-200, 1984. 

[13] S. S. Acharya and N. Agarwal, Agricultural marketing in India, 4th ed. New Delhi: Oxford IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 

2004. 

[14] E-Krishi Shiksha, "Horti-business management (2+0)." India: Retrieved from: 

http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=16979. [Accessed October 22, 2021], 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

 

http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=16979
http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=16979

