J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper INTRODUCTION India is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world and produces 260 million tons of food grains. Despite this, India also faces huge post- harvest losses accounting for lack of proper handling practices and storage infrastructures. These post- harvest losses incurred due to inadequacies in storage and logistics account for Rs. 92,651 crores ($13 billion) per year. According to the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income, the proportions of produce that farmers are unable to sell in the market at the national level are 34 % a nd 44. 6 %, for vegeta bles a nd fr uits respectively and 40 % for fruits and vegetables together. This means, every year, farmers lose around Rs 63,000 crore for not being able to sell their produce for which, they have already made investments. It is also reported that only 10-11% of fruits and vegetables cultivated in India can be saved using cold storage facilities due to the expenses involved and lack of suitable facilities. Finance is another setback. To avert storage woes and lack of finance and liquidity; horticultural farmers are compelled to sell their produce immediately, within days of harvest, at any prevailing rate due to high perishability of horticultural crops. This covers distress sale and farmers do not realize the best price because of supply glut in the market. Farmers Producer Company may reduce this loss through improved value chain management. In India, the producer company concept has arisen as a new generation farmer’s organization. Fruits and vegetables are suitable sector which can provide 2-4 times higher income to farmers than cereals. Near about 23 per cent of total registered FPCs are working exclusively in horticulture and Assessing performance of horticultural farmers producer companies: Comparative case study Mukherjee A.1, Kumar U.2, Singh D.K.2, Shubha K.2, Atheequlla G.A.*3 Sinha P.K.4 and Singh P.1 1Divn. of Agrl Extn, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 2ICAR-Research Comple for Eastern Region, Patna 3ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore 4ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Jharkahnd, India *Corresponding author Email : atheeq.agriextn@gmail.com ABSTRACT Every year the horticultural sector of India faces huge quantity of food wastage due to lack of processing, value addition and post-harvest handling. Farmers Producer Company (FPC) can mitigate the loss through ensuring better value chain management. There are several horticulture based FPCs established in different parts of India. They have grown very fast and competing with agro-industries. The present study aimed to assess the performance of FPCs working in horticulture sector. The study was conducted in Maharashtra State of India by selecting three FPCs working in horticultural sector. Performance of these FPCs was assessed through Effectiveness Index developed for this study. Seven components viz. functional effectiveness, increase in income, increase in farmers share in consumers rupees, inclusiveness, sustainability of company, farmers satisfaction and empowerment were included in the index by following standard index forming protocol. Sahyadri Farms was found the best performing one among the selected FPCs, regarding effectiveness with a mean index score of 63.69 followed by Vasundhara Agro Producer Company Limited (50.20) and Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. (41.29). Keywords: Effectiveness, farmers’ producer company (FPC), horticulture 521 Assessing performance of horticultural farmers producer companies J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 many more are working in mixed approach i.e. combination of agricultural and horticultural crops as production options. FPCs can act as a potential driving force for agricultural and rural development. They are working as ‘engines’ of development that can uphold the pennon of rural development even ahead of local level, offering benefits to the rest of society (Blokland and Goue, 2007). In reality, FPCs have favorable position of scale economies applies to input purchases and accumulation, processing and marketing of the farmers produce in bulk. In both these cases, FPOs can bargain better prices. Through vertical and horizontal coordination as well as forward and backward linkage, FPCs work in value-addition processes which has not only enhanced their dealing power but also increased the share in consumers’ rupee. FPCs have minimized the risk of farmers through promoting crop and livestock insurances. It has diminished the cost of information seeking, connecting smallholders to more complex market situation and making farmers acquainted with the competitive business environment through capacity building and empowerment. T her e a r e sever a l hor ticultur e-based FPCs in Maha r ashtra which ha ve grown very fast and competing with agro industries. The strategic and technological innovations in value chain, clear vision, strong planning and technical insight are the core factors which made the FPC a leader among all grapes exporting agencies. There is immense potential for FPCs to work similarly in the area of value-chain management, so that the huge amount of post-harvest losses can be saved and utilized for home consumption and exports. As the model is new, less studies have been carried out so far on assessing the performance of Farmers Producer Companies in horticulture. Therefore, the present study is aimed to assess the performance of FPCs working in horticulture sector. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area: The study was conducted in Maharashtra State of India. The state is one of the pioneer states in India where the growth of Farmers Producer Companies is remarkably high. Three successful companies working in vegetable, fruits and overall horticulture and processing industry were selected from the state through purposive sampling based on five specific criteria viz. i. the FPC has been working for more than 5 years successfully; ii. it has a sizeable membership (more than 2000 members), iii. turnover has been more than Rs. 50 lakhs; iv. FPC has several reported success stories and v. it has a unique business model. The criteria based purposive sampling was useful to select an effective and functional companies wor king a t gr ound level. Ba sed on tha t thr ee companies have been selected based on the growth. Junna r Ta luka FPC Ltd. is a FPC in initia l development stage and working in mainly vegetable sector. Vasundhara Agro Producer Company Limited was selected as a company working mainly in fruits and some vegetable crops at moderate stage of growth. Sahyadri Farms working both in fruits and vegetable was selected for the study as it has achieved a tremendous growth level. The data was collected from the members of their FPCs Pune and Nasik District of Maharashtra. Operationalization of performance In this r esea r ch, we ha ve oper a tiona lized the performance as how effectively the producer company carr ies out its functions. It is better related to organizational performance which indicates how successfully an organized group of people with a pa r ticula r pur pose per for m a function. In a n organization like Farmers Producer Company, it is important to take care of farmers’ satisfaction, empowerment, increasing income of farmers, ensuring va lue cha in ma na gement, functional ea siness, inclusiveness etc. by combining a ll these, a n Effectiveness Index was prepared which is used in this study. Research design and survey instrument In this study, an Ex-Post Facto research design was used. A semi-structured interview schedule was prepared. The interview schedule consisted of eighteen different socio-personal and socio-economic variables of respondents and an index was formulated to measure the effectiveness of horticulture-based producer company. The effectiveness index included seven components (1) Functioning efficiency, (2) Increase in income, (3) Increase in farmers share in consumers rupee (4) Inclusiveness, (5) Sustainability of Fa r mer s Pr oducer Compa ny, (6) Fa r mer s satisfaction and (7) Empowerment The index was prepared based on the above-mentioned parameters and was calculated by the following equation. 522 Mukherjee et al Where, EFPC = Indicated the effectiveness of the particular company (1) FE = Functioning effectiveness, (2) I = Increase in Income, (3) FSC= Increase in farmers share in consumers’ rupee, (4) Inc = Inclusiveness, (5) S = Sustainability of farmers producer com pany, (6 ) FS= Farmers satisfaction and (7) E = Empowerment Wi is respective weight calculated based on Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) of experts rating to the seven components based on Saaty (2008) and Mukherjee et al., (2018c). After consultation with the experts and reviewing a vast volume of literature, a rating scale was prepared for constructing the effectiveness index comprising the seven components. The effectiveness index was prepared following standard procedure. Twenty experts working in the top management for promoting farmers organizations were consulted and review of related studies were considered for constructing the index. The effectiveness index comprised of the seven following components. (1) Functional effectiveness: A functional efficiency index with 1-5 point scale was developed to evaluate the functioning of FPCs. Ten most relevant dimensions were studied in this index measuring the functional effectiveness. Summa tion of the scor es of 10 functioning variables used in the study yielded functioning score of a single respondent. The scores of members of a particular group were added together to get the functioning score of that FPCs. The index was calculated by dividing the actual score by the maximum possible score of functioning. A similar method was followed by Abadi (2010). (2) Increase in income: Measurement of increase in income was calculated by outreaching the earlier income per year (i.e. before the intervention of the FPC) and the pr esent income per yea r of the agricultural produce (i.e. after the intervention of the FPC). (3) Increase in farmers share in consumer rupee: This was calculated by outreaching the earlier farmers share (i.e. before the intervention of the FPC) and the present farmers share of the agricultural produce (i.e. after the intervention of the FPC). (4) Inclusiveness: The component inclusiveness was added as dimension in effectiveness to study how inclusive the compa nies wer e in including the ba ckwa r d cla ss a nd poor est of the poor. T he inclusiveness was studied by an index developed for the study including the category of farmers, caste, gender and financial class. (5) Sustainability of the company: Sustainability of company is very much important. If a source of income is not sustained, it cannot provide livelihood security. The sustainability of FPC was measured by a schedule developed for the purpose. This included the growth trends of fixed and capital assets of company and most importantly the human resources were considered. (6) Farmers satisfaction: The farmers satisfaction of the FPC services based on the selected dimensions was measured by an index developed for that purpose following the procedure given by Edwards (1957). This index consisted of 15 statements with 1-5 point of scale to which the respondents were asked to give their responses. The responses were averaged to get respondents satisfaction. (7) Empowerment: Empowerment of farmers due to joining of FPC was measured by an index developed for the purpose following the procedure given by Edward (1957). This index consisted of 14 statements covering all aspects of empowerment with 1-5 point of scale on which the respondents were asked to give their responses. T he r esponse of all seven components in this Effectiveness index wer e nor ma lized by z transformation and then averaged. Similar methods were also followed by Mukherjee et al., (2011) and Nikam, (2013). The weights for each component were assigned based on experts judgments using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) depicted in Table 1 which indicates, the empowerment was weighted highest (eigen value = 0.26) followed by sustainability of producer company (eigen value = 0.20), members farmers satisfaction (eigen value = 0.17). Increase in income and share in consumers rupee was weighted next Eigen value 0.14 and 0.11 respectively. The consistency ratio of the AHP was 0.147 and consistency index 0.0991. The CI should be less than 0.1 which satisfies the result. The consistency index score indicated the consistency in judges’ ratings. J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 523 Sampling and data collection Focused group discussions (FGDs) and series of key infor ma nt inter views wer e ca r r ied out to identify the aspects of effectiveness. Additionally, previous effectiveness studies were also reviewed to pr epa r e the sur vey instr ument. T he sur vey instrument was sent to experts for their comments and possible modification and improvement were done based on their recommendations. For easy understanding of the farmers, the instrument was translated in hindi (common language) and a pilot test of 20 farmers was done to further clarify the questions. In-depth interviews were conducted with key informants to ensure the triangulation of data. Proper care was taken to make the respondents comfortable and the unbiased recording of the data wa s ensured. T he data were collected from 50 randomly selected members of the company but due to incomplete response some interview schedules were rejected. Finally, a sample of 34 respondents of Va s undha r a Agr o P r oduc er C ompa ny; 3 7 respondents from Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. and 38 respondents of Sahyadri Farms were considered for analysis. Statistical analysis: Comparison of socio-economic characteristics of farmers across the company were done through non parametric tests. For the statistical analysis, the data were analyzed using MS Excel and SPSS 20 software. Table 1 : Effectiveness index weight scores for various components of FPCs Functional Income Share in Inclusive- Sustaina- Satisfac- Empower- Eigen- Attribute efficiency consume ness bility tion ment value rupee Functional 1.0 0.33 0.40 0.50 0.29 0.31 0.25 0.05 efficiency Increase 3 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.67 0.80 0.50 0.14 in income Share in con- 2.5 0.67 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.57 0.40 0.11 sume rupee Inclusiveness 2 0.50 0.67 1.00 0.40 0.44 0.33 0.08 Sustainability 3.5 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.00 1.25 0.67 0.20 Satisfaction 3.25 1.25 1.75 2.25 0.80 1.00 0.57 0.17 Empowerment 4 2.00 2.50 3.00 1.50 1.75 1.00 0.26 Note: CR=0.147; CI=0.0991 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Profile of selected Farmers Producer Companies: Assessment of effectiveness of FPCs starts with compa r a tive pr ofile stu dy. It is impor t a nt to understand the structural and functional difference of selected FPCs for better comparison as a case. The compar ative profiles of selected FPCs are depicted in the Table 2. Vasundhara Agri-Horti Producer Company Limited Vasundhara Agri-Horti Producer Company Limited (VAPCOL) is a pioneering organisation functioning for the remuneration of farmers’ family in tribal areas across various states of India. The company was established in July, 2004 with help of BAIF ( Bha r a t iya Agr o I ndu s t r ies F ou nda t ion) orga niza tion. Pr esently ther e ar e 48 pr oducer groups consisting of 41,000 farmers from the state of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. The turnover of the company is estimated as Rs 17 crores. Junnar Taluka Farmers Producer Company Ltd. Junnar Taluka Farmers Producer Co. Ltd (JTFPC), promoted by Vegetable Growers association of India with support of Small Farmers Agribusiness Consor tium (SFAC), (Ministr y of Agricultur e, Assessing performance of horticultural farmers producer companies J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 524 Govt. of India), is a registered Farmers Producer Compa ny under the Companies act 1956. The company was established in the year 2009 is Pune, Maharashtra, with the hand holding of Vegetable Growers Association of India. This company is involved in crop production, crop protection and explor ing ma r keting pla tfor m to the pr oducer members in ameliorating the economic status by value addition to their produce. The objectives of the company are collectivize the small vegetable growers, improve the standards of living through better use of improved technology of vegetable production, processing and marketing; minimize the environmenta l degra dation while ma int a ining s u s t a ina b le pr of it s a nd p r ovide consultancy in the field of horticulture especially for promotion of organic farming. Table 2 : Comparisons of the profiles of selected Farmers Producer Company Particulars of Vasundhara Agro Junnar Sahyadri selected Producer Producer Company Taluka Farms Companies Limited FPC Ltd. Year of Registration 2004 2013 2011 Promoting BAIF Veg. Growers Own organization Association of India Ownership model Institutional Individual Individual followed No. of members 41000 farmers of 1600 1000 48 producer groups Area of operation Maharashtra; Pune, Maharashtra Nasik, Maharashtra Gujarat; Rajasthan; UP; Madhya Pradesh; Chhattisgarh Turnover 17 5 500 (Rs. crores)* Products marketed Cashew, All vegetables, All fruits and Mango and Amla pomegranate, vegetables value added products grapes Market National and Local and Regional National and landscape international market Markets International markets Service Marketing, Supply of inputs, Financial assistance, provided Financial assistance, training of crop insurance, Food Managerial members, processing, marketing, support etc. Value addition and production improvement, marketing etc. Training etc. Note : * approximate estimation Sahyadri Farms ‘Sahyadri Farms’ is working as a Farmers Producer Company since 2011 in Nasik, Maharashtra. It is a 100 percent farmer ’s owned and professionally managed Producer Company. It is operationally sound with best use of production and processing tec hnology. Toda y, the c ompa ny is a lea ding exporter of grapes in India, exporting ~14 percent of the total export of grapes to Europe. There are more than 3000 farmers working day and night for the company. It is India’s leading FPC which is producing, ma r keting and expor ting of fr ozen vegeta ble, va lue a dded fr uit pr oducts, etc. to Germany, USA, Norway and many other countries. Socio-economic profile of FPC members The socio economic profile of selected FPC members’ from all three FPCs was studied for comparison. The results are presented in the Table 3. Mukherjee et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 525 Table 3 : Socio-economic profile of members of different FPCs Characteristics VAPCOL Sahyadri Farms Junnar Taluka (n=34) (n=37) (n=38) Age a. Young (18-35 years) 11 (32.4) 20 (54.05) 17 (44.7) b. Middle aged (36-50 years) 6 (17.6) 9 (24.32) 16 (42.1) c. Old (51-80 years) 17 (50.0) 8 (21.62) 5 (13.2) Gender a. Male 16 (47.1) 32(86.5) 37 (97.4) b. Female 18 (52.9) 5 (13.5) 1 (2.6) Education level a. Middle schooling 18 (52.9) 8 (21.6) 21 (55.3) b. Higher secondary 14(41.2) 16 (43.2) 13 (34.2) c. Graduate 2 (5.9) 13 (35.1) 4 (10.5) Family size a. Nuclear (up to 5) 10 (29.4) 12 (32.4) 10 (26.3) b. Joint family (6 and above) 24 (70.6) 25 (67.6) 28 (73.7) Farm Size a. Up to 1 ha 34 (100.0) 24 (64.9) 25 (65.8) b. More than 1 ha 0 (0.0) 13 (35.1) 13 (34.2) Social participation a. High 32 (94.1) 33 (89.2) 33 (86.8) b. Low 2 (5.9) 4 (10.8) 5 (13.2) Extension agency contact a. High 33 (97.1) 33 (89.2) 23 (60.5) b. Low 1 (2.9) 4 (10.8) 15 (39.5) Urban contact a. High 28 (82.4) 37 (100.0) 37 (100.0) b. Low 6 (17.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Training experience a. Never 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) b. Once 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) c. Two and more 34 (100.0) 37 (100.0) 38 (100.0) Members of Other Group a. No 0 (0.0) 5 (13.5) 17 (44.7) b. Yes 34 (100.0) 32 (86.5) 21 (55.3) Progressiveness a. Less 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) b. Moderate 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) c. High 0 (0.0) 3 (8.10) 0 (0.0) d. Very high 34 (100.0) 34 (91.90) 38 (100.0) Assessing performance of horticultural farmers producer companies J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 526 The Table 3 indicates that majority of the farmers were of young categories for Sahyadri farms (54.05%) and Junnar Taluka FPC (44.70%). In case of VAPCOL majority of the members were found much older and experienced than others. There was no significant difference in age groups recorded. Also, majority of the respondent members were male in both the cases of Sahyadri farms and Junnar Taluka FPC, but in case of VAPCOL, majority (52.90%) were female. A similar case was also recorded for level of education and family size. Majority of the VAPCOL farmers were small and marginal in nature having less than 1 hectare land holding. Although, in case of Sahyadri farms, it was found that 64.90 % of the farmers were marginal in nature where as 35.10 % had having land holding more than 1 hectare. In the vegetable based farmer producer company at Junnar Block 65.80 % of the farmers were marginal. Social participation is an important parameter of socioeconomic status. The highest social participation was recorded for VAPCOL farmers (94.10 %) followed by Sahyadri farms (89.20 %) and Junnar Taluka Farmer Producer Company (86.60 %). Similar case can also be seen in case of extension agency contact where, a majority of the VAPCOL fa rmers (97. 10 %) had high level of extension agency contact followed by Sahyadri farms (89.20 %). For training experience it was found that all of the producer company members attended two and more trainings in their life time. Majority of them were members of other groups like self-help groups, co-operatives etc. The number is highest in case of VAPCOL because, it is following institutional model where several cooperatives combine to form farmers producer company, so apart from the membership in FPOs, the VAPCOL farmers were also associated in cooperatives. Sahyadri farm was developed from self help groups, that is why 86.50 % of the farmers had membership in other groups but the case is different for Junnar Taluka where, individual farmers associated with each other to form the company so, only 55.30 % farmers were associated with other groups. In case of progressiveness and attitude, it was found that majority of the farmers in all the groups were progressive in nature and have positive attitude towards FPCs. The increase in annual income was found to be the highest in case of Sahyadri farms, in which 64.90 % of the members where earning more than 3 lakh after joining Sahyadri farms whereas 35.10 % earn between 2 to 3 lakh per year. The majority of the farmers of Junnar Taluka (57.90 %) were earning 2-3 lakh and 42.10 % of them has enhanced their income up to Rs. 1 to 2 lakhs after joining the FPC. The VAPCOL is a association of very small farmers and it was found that the majority (88.20 %) had able to enhance income up to 1 lakh per annum after joining the company, while 11.8 % up to 1 to 2 lakh per annum. Comparative effectiveness of selected Farmers Producer Companies It is essentia l to a ssess the effective of FPCs wor king in the hor t ic ultu r e s ec tor. P r odu cer Company wise mean score of the components of effectiveness is depicted in Table 4. Functional efficiency wise, all the companies scored more than 4. 5 out of 5, which is a quite high scor e. It indicated that the companies were well functioning. The highest score was obtained by Sahyadri Farms (4.55) as it has its own management tea m and qualified salaried staff. Functional efficiency wise the companies are nearly at par with each other. Attitude towards the FPC a. Positive 34 (100.0) 36 (97.30) 38 (100.0) b. Negative 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) c. Neutral 0 (0.0) 1 (2.70) 0 (0.0) Annual Income a. 0-1 lakh 30 (88.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) b. 1-2 lakh 4 (11.8) 0 (0.0) 16 (42.1) c. 2-3 lakh 0 (0.0) 13 (35.1) 22 (57.9) d. More than 3 lakh 0 (0.0) 24 (64.9) 0 (0.0) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage value Mukherjee et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 527 0.81 and 0.69 respectively. Satisfaction of member farmers was high for all the FPCs. The score obtained by the companies was in the range of 4.37 (Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd.) to 4.49 (Sahyadri Farms). It indicates the farmers perceived level of satisfaction after joining Producer Company. Empowerment is another important parameter for effectiveness. The companies which empowered the member better were Vasundhara Agro Producer Company Limited (4.47) followed by Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. (4.44) and Sahyadri Farms (4.42). The overall mean score of farmers satisfaction were more than 4.4 out of the scale of 5. The effectiveness score of different Farmers Producer Companies are depicted in Table 5. The overall index score indicates that the Sahyadri Farms is the best among other regarding effectiveness with mean score 63. 69 followed by Vasundha r a Agr o Pr oducer Company Ltd (50.20) and Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. (41.29). The reason behind this are that the companies are good in empowering their members, have a sustainable business venture, the members were highly satisfied with the performance of company and effective in enhancing farmers income. To study the whether the companies significantly differ in effectiveness, one way ANOVA was conducted. The F value was 68.142 which were significant at 1 per cent level of significance. It is observed that the companies significantly differed from each other in effectiveness (Table 6). Table 4 : Overall effectiveness of FPCs based on components mean score Company Functional Increase Increase in share in Inclusive- sustaina- satisfac- Empower- efficiency in Income consumer’s rupee ness bility tion ment (%) (%) VAPCOL 4.51 31.71 34.71 0.76 0.81 4.44 4.47 Sahyadri 4.55 67.41 32.08 0.67 0.92 4.49 4.42 Farms JTFPC 4.52 32.29 32.18 0.75 0.69 4.37 4.44 Ltd. As per the data, the highest percentage increase in annual income of members farmers before joining the company was observed in Sahyadri Farms (67.41%). The results showed that farmer’s income had enhanced in a range of 32 to 67 per cent after joining Farmers Producer Companies. Farmers share in consumer ’s rupee was another component, which indicates level of value addition. It was found that farmers share in consumers rupee had increased 32-35 per cent more than earlier. It is mainly due to the value addition at producer company level. The highest increase was found for VAPCOL (34.71 %) which was due to well-established marketing channel by the company. Beside this door to door picking and delivery to retail market and marketing efficiency has culminated the change. Inclusiveness is another indicator used in this index to have a look on whether the companies are working with the poor and backward section of society or not. It was found all the FPCs were inclusive in nature. VAPCOL farms scored 0.76 out of 1 whereas Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. scored 0.75 whereas in case of the Sahyadri Farms the members are already working in grapes and a large number of the members were rich before joining the FPC which is reflected in the lesser inclusiveness score (0.67). Sustainability of an organization is key factor in effectiveness. The big FPCs scor ed better in these pa r a meter s. In sustainability parameter, Sahyadri Farms, VAPCOL and Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. got the index score 0.92, Table 5 : Overall effectiveness of Farmer Producer Company FPCs Mean SD Range Minimum Maximum VPCOL 50.20 10.64 46.31 27.67 73.98 Sahyadri Farms 63.69 12.33 52.98 34.69 87.67 JTFPC Ltd. 41.29 10.84 49.10 17.17 66.27 Assessing performance of horticultural farmers producer companies J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 528 Effectiveness of any Farmers Producer Company depends on how better it is empowering farmers. How it is influencing the social, political, psychological and economic empowerment parameters of the rural community. Farmers Producer Company provided a platform for farmers to join together, involve together and work with groups. This enhanced farmer ’s inter a ction with different progr essive fa rmer s (Mukherjee et al., 2020). As per the experts rating, empowerment was weighted highest (0.26), the FPCs who ensured better empowering farmers through training and capacity building exercise in horticultural products gained major weightages. Sustainability of income was another important parameter realized to be the important in effectiveness of FPCs. It depends upon sales growth, membership growth, successful ventures made, profit growth, market linkages and several others factors. Farmer producer companies can play a more important role in sustainable agricultural intensification for smallholders, particularly by addressing the constraints like the size of landholding, access to credit, irrigation, and marketplaces (Reddy et al., 2020). Satisfaction of the producers are the next important index parameter which includes timeliness of inputs deliver y, qua lity ser vice, dividend distribution, income enhancement etc. CONCLUSION In this study, an attempt was made to measure the performance of horticulture based farmers producer companies with a n effectiveness ha ving seven components namely, functioning efficiency, increase in income, increase in farmers share in consumers rupee inclusiveness, sustainability of Farmers Producer Company, farmers satisfaction and empowerment. The component empowerment was weighted highest followed by sustainability of producer company members, farmers satisfaction and increase in income. Sahyadri Farms was the best among other regarding effectiveness with mean score 63.69 followed by and Vasundhara Agro Producer Company Limited. (50.20) and Junnar Taluka FPC Ltd. (41.29). The reason Table 6 : Effectiveness of FPCs (ANOVA) Category Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.(p) Between Groups 1.159 7 0.166 68.142 0.000 Within Groups .693 285 0.002 Total 1.852 292 behind this may be that the companies are good in empowering their members, having a sustainable business venture, the members were highly satisfied with the performance of company and effective in enhancing farmers income. The three parameters, farmers empowerment, FPC sustainability and farmers satisfaction cumulatively contributing 63 % of index weights. To be effective, the horticultural FPCs need to focus on these three parameters most. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors are thankful to IARI for conceptual support and ICAR for funding support for the study. REFERENCES Abadi, T. G. 2010. Impact of agricultural marketing coopera tive societies in empower ing and enhancing rural livelihood in India. Ph.D. Thesis. Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Ala gh, Y. K. 2007. On pr oducer Compa nies. PRADHAN’S Wor kshop on Pr oducer Compa nies. Ava ila ble a t https:// www.pradan.net/images/news/prof_ykalagh.pdf accessed on 16 December 2021. Blokland, K. and Goue, C. 2007. Farmers’ peer-to- peer support path to economic development. In: Ton, G., Bijman, J. and Oorthuizen, J. (Eds), Producer Organizations and Market Chains. Fa cilita ting Tr a jector ies of Cha nge in Developing Countr ies. Wa geningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 71–88. Edward, A.L.1957. Techniques of attitude scale construction. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Inc, New York. Edward, E.L; Lloyd, S.J. 1973. Expectancy theory and job behavior. Organizat. Behav. Human Per., 9(3): 482. Mukherjee, A., Bahal, R., Burman, R.R., Dubey, S.K., and Jha, G.K. 2011. Effectiveness of Tata Kisan Mukherjee et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 529 Sansar in technology advisory and delivery services in Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Ext. Educ., 11(3): 8-13. Mukher jee, A. , Monda l, T. , Bisht, J. K. , a nd Pattanayak, A. 2018c. Farmers’ preference of fodder trees in mid hills of Uttarakhand: A compr ehensive r a nking using a na lytica l hierarchy process. Range Mgmt. Agrofor. 39(1): 115-120. Mukherjee, A., Singh, P., Ray, M., Satyapriya and Bur ma n, R. R. 2018b. Enhancing fa r mer s income through farmers’ producers companies in India: Status and roadmap. Indian J. Agri. Sci., 88(8): 1151-61. Mukherjee, A., Singh, P., Satyapriya and Burman, R.R. 2018a. Road map and strategies for effective viable profit making farmer producer companies. ICAR News, Janua ry-March, pp. 16-18. Mukherjee, A., Singh, P., Maity, A., Shubha, K., and Burman, R. R. 2020. Enhancing livelihood security of dairy farmers through farmers’ producer compa ny: a diagnostic study of Bundelkhand region. Range Manag. Agrofor., 41(1): 156-167. Nikam, V.R., 2013. Linking farmers to export market: A case of mahagrapes in India. Ph.D. Thesis. Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Reddy, I. V., Wakle, P. K., Koshti, N. R. , and Sonkamble, A. M. 2017. Constraints and suggestions of the chilli farmers in Bhiwapur pa ncha ytsa miti of Na gpur Distr ict. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem., SP1: 625-628. Reddy, V. R., Chiranjeeivi, T., and Syme, G. 2020. Inclusive susta ina ble intensifica tion of agriculture in West Bengal, India: Policy and institutional approaches. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 18(1): 70-83. Saaty, T.L. 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Ser. Sci., 1: 83-98. Singh, S. 2008. Pr oducer Companies a s New Gener a tion Cooper a tives. Economic a nd Political Weekly pp. 22-24. Mukherjee et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 520-529, 2022 (Received : 16.10.2021; Revised : 15.12.2022; Accepted : 29.12.2022)