1
- Aaron Christian
(DoMS, IIT Madras- May to July 2018)
Export Promotion of Horticulture
Crops in Madhya Pradesh
‘’Farming needs a lot of water-
Mostly in the form of perspiration’’
2
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance and Policy Analysis
for giving us the opportunity to work with the Department of Horticulture, Madhya Pradesh on
this project.
I am grateful to Shri Satyanand (IFS), Commissioner, Department of Horticulture and Food
Processing, Madhya Pradesh for providing us with the opportunity to work on this project.
I am very thankful to Dr. Vijay Agarwal, Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture, MP,
for mentoring and providing guidance during the course of the project. The opportunities and
experience garnered from them are priceless.
I extend my heartfelt thanks to Mr Gaurav Khare, Deputy Advisor (Governance), Atal Bihari
Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance and Policy Analysis for his guidance, inputs, insights
and foremost for selecting us for this internship. It has truly been a learning experience.
I also thank our institute DoMS, IIT Madras for giving us this internship opportunity.
The internship was a test of all that we learnt in the college, and for this we thank the faculty
members of Department of Management Studies- Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. The
knowledge I have gathered from them was of immense help.
3
Declaration
This is to certify that Aaron Christian, pursuing Masters in Business Administration
(MBA) from Department of Management Studies- Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras have successfully completed the project titled “Export Promotion of
Horticulture Crops in Madhya Pradesh” which was assigned by the Department of
Horticulture and Food Processing, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
I acknowledge that Aaron Christian, has worked under my guidance, during the course
of their internship and has submitted original work in this report.
Vijay Agarwal
Deputy Director
(Department of Horticulture
& Food processing)
4
Declaration
I, Aaron Christian, hereby declare that the project report titled “Export Promotion of
Horticulture Crops in Madhya Pradesh” is my original work. The contents of the project
report have not been published before and reflect the work done by us during our Summer
Internship from 16th May 2018 to 13th July 2018 with the Department of Horticulture and
Food processing, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The internship was under Atal Bihari
Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance and Policy Analysis.
Place: Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Aaron Christian
Date: 13-7-18 DoMS, IIT Madras
5
Index
Topic Pg. No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-Overview of Horticulture 6
-Export Scenario 8
-Abstract, findings and challenges 10
Data Collection methodology 12
Approach of report 13
A- CROP ANALYSIS
1- Fruits
Guava 16
Orange 23
Banana 30
Mango 36
Pomegranate 43
Custard Apple 48
2- Vegetables
Onion 53
Potato 60
Tomato 68
Green Peas 76
Green Chilly 83
3- Spices
Garlic 90
Ginger 97
Coriander seeds 105
Red Chilly 113
PART B
Crop infrastructure analysis 118
Potential products 120
Organic agriculture analysis 121
MP Mandi Analysis 126
E-NAM Analysis 130
Post-Harvest Management 132
C- RECOMMENDATIONS 139
D- EXPORT STANDARDS FOR CROPS
1-Fruits 143
2-Vegetables 170
3-Spices 195
6
Executive Summary1
Madhya Pradesh, a state in Central India has an immense potential for exports
of Horticulture crops and can increase Indian horticulture crop exports to a
good extent.
Objective of study- The objective of this study is to select major horticulture
crops which can be exported from MP and analyse them in details regarding
production, arrivals, prices, import and exports and quality standards.
1- Overview of Horticulture
India is a major producer of Horticulture crops with many crops having
production in the top 3 countries in the world.
Yet our horticulture exports do not form a major part in the total Indian exports
and India is also not a major competitor to other countries in some crop
exports.
Horticulture Production- Share of each heads
Vegetable production in India has a significant share in Horticulture production
followed by fruits. For MP the same trend is seen. The only difference is that
MP has no production of Plantation Crops which include Arecanut, Cashewnut,
Cocoa, Coconut, etc. due to the unfavourable soil and climatic conditions.
The total production in 2016-17 for horticulture crops is 295164000 MT in
India and 23792510 MT in MP which is 8.06% of the Indian production.
This shows that MP has a huge potential for exports.
1 Source- Horticulture at a glance 2017
59%
32%
2%
1%6%
Share in Total Horticulture Production: 2016-17- India
Vegetables
Fruits
Spices
Flowers andAromaticPlantationcrops
69%
25%
3%
3%
0%
Share in Total Horticulture Production: 2016-17- MP
Vegetables
Fruits
Spices
Flowers andAromaticPlantationcrops
7
2- Production statistics
Production Trend- India
Production Trend- MP
The above graphs show the production of each group of crops trend over 3
years.
In India, every group of crops production in rising in the last 3 years.
For MP, production of vegetables and flowers & aromatic is rising but the
production of fruits and spices is decreasing. Factors creating this decreasing
trend should be sought and measures should be taken.
The total Horticulture produce from 2013-14 to 2015-16 in India has increased
by 3.09% and for MP it has increased by 13.18% which shows that the
production for MP is increasing rapidly as compared to India.
Vegetables Fruits SpicesFlowers and
AromaticPlantation
crops
2013-14 169478 86602 6108 3143 15575
2014-15 169064 90183 6988 3206 16658
2015-16 175008 92846 7077 3227 16867
020000400006000080000
100000120000140000160000180000200000
Pro
du
ctio
n-
'00
0 M
T
Year
Production Trend- India
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Vegetables Fruits SpicesFlowers and
AromaticPlantation
crops
2013-14 14199 6119 699 624 0
2014-15 15568 5783 711 713 0
2015-16 16447 5937 691 718 0
02000400060008000
1000012000140001600018000
Pro
du
ctio
n-
'00
0 M
T
Year
Production Trend- MP
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
8
3- Export Scenario in India2
India is the 17th largest export economy in the world having exports worth
$261B in 2016. It also imported worth $339B creating a negative trade balance
of $78B in 2016. This export value has decreased by 3.1% from 2011 when the
exports were worth $274B.
The top exports included diamonds, refined petroleum, packaged medicaments,
jewellery and cars. Though India has a vast area and has high horticultural
produce, horticultural exports do not have a major share in Indian exports.
Top 10 importers from India-
Trade Balance of India
2 Source- https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/
0
10
20
30
40
50
Bill
ion
$
Top 10 importers from india- 2015
0
100
200
300
400
500
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
Bill
ion
$
Trade Balance
Export value Import value
9
Indian Exports-
4- Export scenario in MP
MP has a lot of surplus for many crops. This surplus can be used for exports
directly or can be processed and exported.
We have selected 15 crops who have a lot of export potential in MP and
analysed them.
The crops selected are-
Fruits Guava Orange Banana Pomegranate Mango Custard apple
Vegetables Tomato Onion Potato Green peas Chilly green
Spices Garlic Coriader seed Ginger Chilly red
10
Brief abstract of the report
After selecting 15 potential crops, we have divided each crop in 4 sections
namely Production analysis, Mandi analysis, Export Analysis, Standard
required for exports.
a- Production Analysis- Here we have analysed the area, production and
productivity statistics of each crop for MP and compared it with India. We have
also shown the key districts in MP for production of each crop.
b- Mandi Analysis- Mandis are markets where the crops come from the farm. We
have analysed the arrival and price trend for each crop for 5 years. We have
also mentioned the key districts, key mandis and key months for arrival of each
crop. We have focused on mandis as mandis can be established as a unit for
procurement for exports.
c- Export Analysis- The export analysis is a major part of our report and includes
the export potential of each crop. For this we have calculated the surplus of
each crop which can be used for exports for MP. We have also analysed the
data of Indian exports of that crop with other country and also compared it to
the world’s largest importers of that crop to check if India exports tothem or
not. We have also analysed the world export, import, re-export and re-import
data for each crop too.
d- Standard required for exports- This section includes the standards required
for each crop for exporting. These standards include quality, size, tolerance,
presentation, marking, labelling, nature of produce, contaminants and hygiene
for each crop.
Key Findings-
India is a huge producer of Horticulture crops and ranks in the top 3 countries
in many crops.
India has a lot of production but the exports as compared to production is low.
The productivity in India and MP has been increasing due to enhanced
technology.
MP also ranks in the top 5 states for many horticulture crops in India.
MP has also increased production of many crops by a huge margin in 5 years
from 2012 to 2017.
The arrivals in Mandis are very low for most of the horticulture crops. They
may even be less than 15% of the production. Horticulture produce is not
regulated as compared to agriculture and so it is not necessary to sell it via
mandis. So most of these crops are sold unregulated outside the mandis directly
to customers, private and unregulated markets, exporters, food processing
units, etc.
11
There is a lot of surplus for these 15 crops in MP. Some crop’s surplus is even
more than the total Indian exports for that crop.
A crop can be exported in its raw form or can be processed and exported. The
processed crop fetches a very high value too.
Eg-
This shows that processing can be very profitable. The demand also exists a lot
and tapping the right markets would be very beneficial.
All countries pay different prices for the same product. Sometimes the
difference is large too. Eg- Onions have an import price ranging from 12 rs/kg
to 47 rs/kg.
Indian crops have less exports because they do not meet the quality standards
set and improving them is necessary in India.
Key Challenges for exports-
There is a lot of post-harvest losses in India for many crops which reduces
surplus.
The productivity in India is very less than the top countries in terms of
productivity.
The arrivals in mandis are very low for horticulture crops and so there is less of
an organised flow of crops.
The quality of the crop is less in India and for some crops less than 20%
produce meets the quality set for exports. Crops do not meet the global
standards.
The surplus is huge but the export markets are not tapped properly.
There is a huge potential for processing too but it has not been utilized at its
potential in MP and India.
We have given our recommendations at the end of this report after
analysing each crop.
Orange prices in 2017 Price(Rs./Kg)
Mandi price in MP- Median 8
Export price of fresh/dry oranges 22
Export price of orange squash 96
Export price of orange oil 1089
12
Data Collection Methodology
The data has been collected through primary and secondary sources.
1- For primary data, we have collected data from-
Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture
District assistant directors of horticulture, Madhya Pradesh
Mandi board Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh
Deputy director- E-Nam, Madhya Pradesh
And mandi secretaries, Madhya Pradesh
2- For secondary data, we have collected major data from various governmental
and institutional resources. They include
Indian government agriculture sites
MP government agriculture and horticulture sites
National sample survey organisation- Report on Household consumption of various
goods and services in India
Indian council of Agricultural research- Central institute of post-harvest engineering
and technology- Report on post-harvest losses.
World trade Organisation
Food and Agriculture Organisation
Organisation of Economic cooperation and Development
UN comtrade
Ministry of Commerce and Industry- Department of Commerce
13
Approach of Analysis
After collection of data, firstly we have selected the 15 crops to be analyzed based on
different factors which included MP’s rank in Indian production, current surplus in
MP, future production and surplus in MP, current export scenario from India and the
future export potential for each crop.
We analysed the production statistics data first by comparing area, production and
productivity data of MP with India’s data.
For mandi analysis, we have analysed mandi’s arrival data for 5 years, price trend for
5 years, wholesale price trend for 2017 and found out the key mandis for each crop.
For export analysis, we first found out the production and surplus of each crop till
2021.
Production was based on forecasting and we have forecasted each crops production by
Average annual growth rate, compounded annual growth rate, linear forecasting,
exponential forecasting, logarithmic forecasting, polynomial forecasting and power
forecasting. The most appropriate values for each crop from these methods was
selected for use based on the accuracy and r2 value.
We then found out the consumption data of each crop for MP from the report of
National Sample Survey organisation study where the data given is in per capita terms
and we multiplied it with the population of MP. The population of MP was taken as
per the CAGR between 2001 and 2011 and used it for finding the population till 2021.
Rural and Urban population were taken into consideration.
Post-harvest losses were found out from the report titled Harvest and Post-harvest
losses of major crops and livestock produce by Indian council of agricultural research-
Central institute of post-harvest engineering and technology.
The surplus was then found out by subtracting the production from the post-harvest
losses and consumption.
We also found out the top countries who import these crops from India and the total
volume and value of these imports and compared it with our surplus.
The top importing, exporting, re-importing and re-exporting countries in the world for
these crops were also found and analysed.
The quality standards required for exporting for each crop were found out from WTO
and FAO.
Assumptions
The median prices were found to be a more accurate measure than the average and
mode value for analysing the price trend of 5 years in mandis and so we have used the
median value.
We had the data for post-harvest losses for majority of the crops but for those that we
did not have we have assumed it by taking value from similar type of crops.
From the surplus we have assumed that only 35% of the surplus can be used for
exports as the other part of surplus won’t be able to match the quality standards for
exports.
The exports are assumed to increase 10% per year till 2021.
14
Limitations of the data-
Data for production of MP from Indian agricultural sites differed from the data which
MP government has with them.
The mandi data was unavailable sometimes.
The global export data for mango and guava is combined and not available for mango
specifically or guava specially.
We could not find the export data for a few crops and hence we could not analyse it.
Standard for coriander for exports is unavailable.
Sanitary and phyto-sanitary requirements for each crop are unavailable and we could
not mention them.
Note- The references for the first crop are given in that crop itself and for the others
they are not given as the source is same as the first crop. The references are given in
guava, garlic and onion.
Abbreviations-
MP- Madhya Pradesh
CAGR- Compound Annual Growth Rate
AAGR- Annual Average Growth Rate
Ha- Hectares
MT- Metric Tonnes
PHM- Post- harvest management
15
FRUITS
16
GUAVA
Indian Rank in Guava Production in the world- 1st
MP’s Rank in India in Production- 2nd
A- Production Analysis3
Production statistics of Guava-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 21.28 801.22
India 214.32 2397.28
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 23.2 371.26
India 268.22 3667.89
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 22.28 394.73
India 246.24 3993.5
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 27.58 482.67
India 254.87 4047.79
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 32.55923 624.6543
India 260 3826
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 126.899 2674.53
India 1243.65 17932.5
3 Sources- Horticulture at a glance 2017 and Data taken from MP government
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
MP 16.00 17.72 17.50 19.19
India 13.67 16.22 15.88 14.72
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
17
Production Insights-
1. India is a major producer for guava and MP has a significant share in India’s
production with a whole belt of districts producing Guava.
2. Guava production in MP is around 15% of the Indian production.
3. The area of production in MP has increased by 53% in last 5 years while for
India it has increased by 21.31%.
4. The production for MP has increased by 68.25% in the last 4 years while for
India it has increased by 4.31%. (We have ignored production value for 2012-
13 as we feel it is an outlier and it may be a reporting error.)
5. The productivity of India and MP is almost stable in the last 5 years with MP’s
productivity being a bit higher than the Indian productivity. This may be due to
the favourable climatic situations in MP for Guava.
B- Mandi Analysis4
Arrival trend of Guava in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 36.9 801220 0.46%
2014 120.19 371263 3.24%
2015 300.79 394731 7.62%
2016 298.78 482674.8 6.19%
2017 199.5 624654.3 3.19%
Total 956.16 2674543.1 3.58%
Price Trend
4 http://agmarknet.gov.in/
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 675 1000 800 1000 800
Modal 675 1100 860 1200 1000
Maximum 675 1200 1000 1500 1000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend- Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
18
2017 Price Trend- Wholesale Monthly Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Bhopal Bhopal 68.02%
Sheopur Syopurkalan 13.18%
Mandi Insights 1. Mandis in MP have negligible arrival % for Guava. The arrivals are just 3-4% of the
production.
2. The production is increasing yet the arrivals are not increasing much.
3. Guava does not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis directly to
customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4. The price fluctuations in Mandis are less in MP in the last 5 years as arrivals are
nearly same.
5. The key mandis for Guava in MP are Bhopal mandi in Bhopal district and
Sheopurkalan Mandi in Sheopur district and they constitute more than 81% of the
total arrivals in MP.
6. The 2017 price tend graph shows seasonality factor in prices. Guava majorly arrives
in 4 months from November to February and the prices in November and December
are a bit higher than in January and February.
7. Only 7-8 Mandis have guava arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very low
number.
The key months for arrivals of guava in MP are November, December,
January, February and March.
1200 1200
864.36 864.36
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Jan Feb Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Guava- Rs./Quintal- 2017
19
C- Exports Forecasted Surplus of Guava in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 631451.8899 531177.3298 114341.4862 416835.8
2018-19 638323.5035 536957.7311 116478.8716 420478.9
2019-20 645269.8956 542801.0362 118656.2111 424144.8
2020-21 652291.88 548707.9295 120874.2517 427833.7
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 16.5 Lac MT for Guavas in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Guava5
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value-
Rs per kg
2016-17 Guava
4,219.59 8851.82 47.66
2017-18 5,547.74 11813.02 46.96
2016-17 Guava Fresh/Dry
610.79 1408.16 43.37
2017-18 553.26 1226.59 45.10
2016-17 Guava Preserved/
Prepared
14.43 15.73 91.73
2017-18 82.58 178.18 46.34
Insights 1. The average price for exported Guava is 400% more on average than the modal price
available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit for exports.
2. Guava is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3. Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Guava.
Guava export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 145892.53 11813.02 1235.01%
2018-19 147167.61 12994.32 1132.55%
2019-20 148450.68 14293.75 1038.57%
2020-21 149741.79 15723.12 952.37%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much
more than all Indian guava exports.
5 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
20
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Guava exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving fruit
quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Guava from India-6
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
INDONESIA 1886.52 1736.35 31.30% 4095.4 2929.95 24.80% 59.26210345
SUDAN 44.29 879.88 15.86% 103 2650 22.43% 33.20301887
SAUDI ARAB 331.72 652.15 11.76% 961.42 2002.64 16.95% 32.56451484
NETHERLAND 353.74 530.3 9.56% 670.28 891.48 7.55% 59.4853502
TANZANIA
REP 63.41 140.77 2.54% 177 417 3.53%
33.75779376
U ARAB EMTS 147.47 166.82 3.01% 293.66 358.33 3.03% 46.55485167
TAIWAN 1.01 108.8 1.96% 1.6 264.98 2.24% 41.05970262
U K 348 153.02 2.76% 549.6 234.1 1.98% 65.36522853
KUWAIT 91.56 112.44 2.03% 181.8 213.65 1.81% 52.62813012
JAPAN 46.47 125.37 2.26% 86 211.6 1.79% 59.24858223
Total 4219.59 5547.74 100.00% 8851.82 11813.02 100.00% 46.96292735
Insights
1- Almost 60% of guava in terms of value is being exported in just 3 countries in the
Middle East & South East Asia at prices almost as good as EU and US, hence we can
prioritize these countries as our major Export partners for guava.
2- Nepal imports 28% of fresh and dry guava which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land. Our major
competitor would be Uttar Pradesh as it has the advantage of proximity.
3- UK, Japan, US, Indonesia, UAE, Qatar are high paying countries hence we can try
and increase our export contribution to these countries.
4- Guava net exports has dropped by 12.9% in 2017-18 from 2016-17 which means we
need to find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian guava and rectify it.
5- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
6 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
21
Top 5 exporting nations of Guava in the world- (Competitors)- (2017
Data)-7
1- Total exports in 2017- 1342766029 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 1633447697 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Guava in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 869321351 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 1812311903 US $
Insights- 1- India leads Guava production in the world yet it is ranked 4th in world exports having
just 9% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in the top 5 exporters which may create more
demand. This value is lower than the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Germany and UK have nearly 55% of the total
imports. India has negligible share of this in US and Germany and it has a very low
share in UK. If these markets are tapped, exports can rise significantly.
7 https://comtrade.un.org/data/ https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/show/all/080450/2016/
28%
12%12%9%
5%
34%
Contribution to total global exports of Guava
Mexico
Brazil
Peru
India
Spain
Others
134
79 77 74 68 63
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Spain Globalaverage
Peru Brazil Mexico India
Per Kg export value of Guava in Rs.
36%
11%9%6%
5%
33%
Contribution to total global imports of Guava
USA
Germany
United Kingdom
Canada
Spain
Others
164152
136 131 124106
020406080
100120140160180
Per Kg import value of Guava in Rs.
22
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a huge
benefit for exports in India.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Guava in the world (2017 Data)-8
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 46.75% 95.91
China, Hong Kong, SAR 46.61% 98.4
Cananda 6.44% 104.7
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 34064344 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 54105649 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 103.24
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Guava in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Australia 35.55% 319.97
Egypt 31.96% 164.11
Slovakia 29.57% 267.94
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 11815 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 41536 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 228.51
Insights-
1- USA and China, Hong Kong are the largest re-exporters with 92% of the total re-
exports. They import a lot, process it and re-export orange products.
2- Australia, Egypt and Slovakia are major re-importers with a high share in exports.
3- Also the price gaps are huge between export prices, import price, re-export price and
re-import price of the global average.
Limitation- The world exports data available is a combination of mango, guava and
mangosteen. So the analysis may have some amount of error.
8 https://comtrade.un.org/data/ https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/show/all/080450/2016/
23
ORANGE
Indian Rank in Orange Production in the world- 3rd
MP’s Rank in India in production-
Mandarin- 1th, Sweet Orange- 4th, Lime/Lemon- 5th
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Orange-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 49.52 844.36
India 323.15 3519.91
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 26.05 277.44
India 334.94 3886.20
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 93.82 1116.20
India 274.68 4228.99
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 108.54 1395
India 349.26 4819.66
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 118.69 1612.15
India 298.38 4639.09
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 396.62 5245.14
India 1580.41 21093.84
Sweet Orange (2012-2017) - Area: 93.33 Thousand Ha & Production- 1383.62 Thousand MT
Lime/Lemon (2012-2017) - Area: 71.32 Thousand Ha & Production- 1070.72 Thousand MT
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
MP 17.05 10.65 11.9 12.85 13.58
India 10.89 11.6 15.4 13.8 15.55
0
5
10
15
20
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
24
Production Insights- 1- India ranks third in Orange production after Brazil and China.
2- MP has a very good share in the Indian production with high production of Kinnow
and Mandarin oranges.
3- MP also has good production of Sweet oranges and Lime/Lemon but we have majorly
worked on Oranges in this report.
4- Orange production in MP is around 20-30% of the Indian production which is huge.
5- Even though the area of production in India has decreased by 7.67% in the last 5
years, MP has increased its area of production by 139.68% in the last 5 years.
6- The production for MP has increased by 90.93% in the last 5 years while for India it
has increased by 31.80%. The increase in MP as compared to India is more due to the
increase in area.
7- The productivity of India and MP is increasing in the last 4 years with MP’s
productivity being a bit lower than the Indian productivity.
B- Mandi Analysis Arrival trend of Orange in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 3284 844358 1.08%
2014 2617 277435 0.94%
2015 6878 1116201 0.62%
2016 3093 1395002 0.22%
2017 9082 1612146 0.56%
Total 24955 5245142 0.48%
Price Trend- Orange
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 800 800 600 800 600
Modal 1000 1000 800 900 800
Maximum 1140 1050 1000 1000 1000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
25
2017 Price Trend- Wholesale Monthly Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Key Districts Key Mandis Mandi Rank
Gwalior Lashkar 62.67%
Bhopal Bhopal 20.17%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have a very low arrival % for Orange. The arrivals are less than 1% of
the production.
2- The production is increasing yet the arrivals are not changing much in MP.
3- 99% of the oranges do not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The prices are almost stable in the last 5 years.
5- The 2017 price trend graph depicts the seasonality factor in price fluctuations. We see
that the prices are least in May and June and the highest in November, December and
January.
6- The key mandis for Oranges in MP are Lashkar mandi in Gwalior district and Bhopal
mandi in Bhopal district. They constitute more than 80% of the total arrivals in MP.
7- Only 13-15 Mandis have orange arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very low
number.
Key months for arrivals of Orange are November, December, January,
February, March and April with peak in March and April.
1147
879 832 793
537 500643 643
785 785
1413
884
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Orange-Rs./Quintal- 2017
26
C. Exports
Forecasted Surplus of Oranges in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 1688583 1524959 47598 1477361
2018-19 1788513 1615206 48488 1566719
2019-20 1873003 1691509 49394 1642115
2020-21 1946191 1757606 50317 1707289
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 63.5 Lac MT for Oranges in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Oranges
Year Product Value (Rs. Lacs) Qty (MT) Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 Orange Fresh/Dry
11,732.53 48091.43 24.40
2017-18 3485.35 15780.36 22.09
2016-17 Orange preserved
5.58 19.1 29.21
2017-18 68.51 38.94 175.94
2016-17 Onion Squash
36.44 26.92 135.36
2017-18 70.42 73.13 96.29
2016-17 Orange oil
167.05 17.8 938.48
2017-18 308.98 28.36 1089.49
Insights
1- The average price for exported Oranges is around 3 times the modal price in
Mandis. This means that there is huge profit for exports.
2- Oranges can be exported in many forms. We see that just making orange
squash, the export price shoots up from 24 to 135 rs and by making oil, it is
sold at around 1000 rs. This is a very good opportunity for Food processing
units in MP.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Orange.
Orange export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 517076 31936 1619%
2018-19 548351 35129 1561%
2019-20 574740 38642 1487%
2020-21 597551 42507 1406%
27
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, the surplus has a greater
share than all Indian orange exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in orange exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving fruit
quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Fresh/Dry Oranges from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-
18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
Bangladesh 8785.87 1615.99 46.37% 35429.86 7236.11 45.86% 23
Nepal 2069.85 1413.88 40.57% 10473.26 7645.67 48.46% 18
UAE 258.85 205.66 5.87% 536.91 469.01 2.97% 43
Qatar 41.47 71.26 2.04% 51.33 147.71 0.94% 48
Oman 49.22 67.82 1.95% 92.56 128 0.81% 53
Kuwait 10.94 35.49 1.02% 12.82 59.73 0.38% 39
Saudi Arabia 11.53 25.41 0.73% 27 64.96 0.41% 124
Uk NR 22.79 0.65% NR 18.45 0.12% 80
Singapore 4.17 3.7 0.11% 6 4.65 0.03% 11
Bhutan 5.94 0.34 0.01% 22.5 2.98 0.02% 22
Total top 10 11237.84 3461.34 99.31% 46652.24 15777.27 99.99%
Total 11732.53 3485.35 100% 48091.43 15778.88 100% 22
Insights
1- Almost 85% of oranges in terms of value is being exported just in 2 countries in
Bangladesh and Nepal, hence we can prioritize these countries as our major Export
partners for oranges.
2- Also we can exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land
and transportation would be cheap.
3- Saudi Arabia and UK are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our
export contribution to these countries which is currently low.
4- UAE, Qatar and Oman also pay a good price and we export around 9% to them which
we can focus on increasing.
5- Orange net exports dropped a lot in 2017-18 and which means that we need to find the
cause of this slump in demand for Indian oranges and rectify it.
6- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
Top nations to target for export of Orange Squash- Saudi Arabia, Somalia,
Iran, Costa Rica and Nepal
Top nations to target for export of Orange oil- Singapore, Indonesia,
Egypt, China, UAE and Sri Lanka
28
Top 5 exporting nations of Oranges in the world- (Competitors)-
(2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 5923200935 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 4394934672 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Oranges in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 4384636721 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 3605298150 US $
Insights- 1- India’s orange production is at 3rd in the world yet it is has no place in the top 5 world
exporting nations.
2- India has very low per Kg export value than the top 5 exporters which may create
more demand. This value is half the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries are Germany, Hong Kong and Russia but India has a
negligible share in these countries. Tapping these markets along with Korea who
import highly and pay a good price too will be beneficial for India.
27.1%
19.8%
9.9%
11.2%
3.2%
28.9%
Contribution to total global exports of Orange in the world
Spain
South Africa
USA
Egypt
Australia
Others
72 70
54 52 4842
01020304050607080
Per Kg export value of Orange in Rs.
10.3%
7.3%
9.8%
6.6%
3.2%
62.8%
Contribution to total global imports of Orange in the world
Germany
China, HongKong SARRussianFederationUnitedKingdomRep. of Korea
Others
102
6856 55 53
41
020406080
100120
Per Kg import value of Orange in Rs.
29
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of oranges in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
China, Hong Kong 98.5% 57.68
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 179837154 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 160496390 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 58
Top 3 Re-importing nations of oranges in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
South Africa 96.8% 38.03
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 1116226 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 671298 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 39.09
Insights-
1- China, Hong Kong are the largest re-exporter with 98.5% of the total re-
exports. They import a lot, process it and re-export orange products.
2- South Africa is a major re-importer with a high share in exports. South Africa
exports at Rs. 42 and re-imports at Rs. 38 which is a good margin for
them.
30
BANANA
Indian Rank in Banana Production in the world- 1st
MP’s Rank in India in production- 7th
A- Production Analysis
Production statistics of Banana-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 25.76 1701.35
India 750.24 24808.09
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 21.09 1304.25
India 802.57 29724.55
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 19.13 1225.45
India 821.8 29221.47
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 22.63 1535.83
India 841.19 29134.82
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 26.97 1873.67
India 860 30477
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 115.57 7640.55
India 4075.79 143365.94
66.0561.85 64.07 67.86 69.47
33.0737.04 35.56 34.64 35.44
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
31
Production Insights-
1- India ranks first in Banana production and MP has a low yet important share in
production.
2- Banana production in MP is around 4-5% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 4.71% in last 5 years while for India it
has increased by 14.63%. MP could not increase much area as the Indian average.
4- The production for MP has increased by 10.13% in the last 5 years while for India it
has increased by 22.85%. The increase in MP as compared to India is less due to less
increase in area.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost stable in the last 5 years with MP’s
productivity being almost double of the Indian productivity. This may be due to the
favourable climatic situations in MP for Banana.
B- Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Banana in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 225723 1701346 15.33%
2014 222672 1304252 17.07%
2015 356215 1225446 29.07%
2016 340082 1535834 22.14%
2017 260781 1873669 13.92%
Total 1179752 7640547 15.44%
Price Trend
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 535.27465 608.3281 549.55545 722.46955 811.18725
Modal 811.97975 1084.3515 874.64505 1186.5885 1277.1725
Maximum 670.5649 858.95205 725.1189 961.9716 1040.7895
0200400600800
100012001400
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi price trend- Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
32
2017 price trend- Wholesale prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP for Bananas
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Burhanpur Burhanpur 96.24%
Mandi Insights
1- Mandis in MP have a higher arrival % for Banana as compared to other horticulture
crops. The arrivals are 15-20% of the production.
2- The production is not increasing much and the arrivals are pretty stable in MP.
3- 80% of the bananas do not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The prices in Mandis are increasing in MP in the last 5 years at a constant rate.
5- The only key mandi for Banana in MP is Burhanpur mandi in Burhanpur disrict and it
constitutes more than 96% of the total arrivals in MP.
6- Only 8-9 Mandis have banana arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very low
number.
Banana have arrivals all across the year with more arrivals in May, June,
July, august, September and October.
C. Exports
Forecasted Surplus of Banana in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 1952995 1801442 407079 1394364
2018-19 2136622 1970820 414688 1556132
2019-20 2320249 2140198 422440 1717758
2020-21 2503876 2309575 430336 1879238
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
1538 1538
1247
897
1053 10531186 1186
971907 909 865
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Banana- Rs./Quintal- 2017
33
As we can see there is a high surplus above 6.5 Lac MT for Bananas in MP
which can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Banana
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value-
Rs per kg
2016-17 Banana- Fresh
and Dry
39820 112693 35.33
2017-18 35539 102112 34.8
Insights 1- The average price for exported Banana is 3 times the modal price in Mandis. This
means that there is huge profit for exports.
2- Banana is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Banana.
Banana export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 488027 102112 478%
2018-19 544646 112324 485%
2019-20 601215 123556 487%
2020-21 657733 135911 483.94%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is
much more than all Indian banana exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Banana exports and can
highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and
improving fruit quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Banana from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
UAE 11920 9155 25.76% 24413 19082 18.69% 47.97
Oman 4618 6283 17.68% 12933 18159 17.78% 34.60
Iran 5512 4939 13.9% 15816 14095 13.8% 35.04
Saudi Arabia 5285 3827 10.77% 10481 7946 7.78% 48.16
Kuwait 4308 2657 7.48% 10460 6133 6.01% 43.32
Qatar 2246 2319 6.53% 3757 4602 4.51% 50.39
Nepal 2767 2048 5.76% 28837 21263 21.18% 9.47
34
Iraq 189.4 NR -- 593 4985 4.88% --
Bahrain 1306 928 2.61% 2608 2069 2.03% 44.87
Maldives 467 601 1.69% 1504 1708 1.67% 35.2
Total top 10 38619 32756 92.17% 111403 100402 98.33% 32.63
Total 39820 35539 100% 112639 102112 100% 34.8
Insights
1- Almost 65% of banana in terms of value is being exported just in 4 countries in the
Middle East & South East Asia, hence we can prioritize these countries as our major
Export partners for Banana.
2- Nepal imports 5.76% of fresh and dry banana which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land and
transportation would be cheap.
3- Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are high paying countries hence we can try
and increase our export contribution to these countries.
4- Banana net exports has dropped by 10.75% in 2017-18 from 2016-17 which means
we need to find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian banana and rectify it.
5- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Banana in the world- (Competitors)-
(2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 15542416725 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 7893571266 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Banana in the world (2017 Data)-
38.6%
14.3%13.3%
5.6%
4.0%
24.1%
Contribution to total global exports of Banana in the world
Ecuador
Philippines
Belgium
USA
Germany
Others
6052
47
33 3025
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Per Kg export value of Banana in Rs.
35
1- Total imports in 2017- 16901593090 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 12550125185 US $
Insights- 1- India leads the Banana production in the world yet it has no place in the top 10
countries who export Banana.
2- India’s per Kg export value is 34.8 on average which is lower than the top 3 exporting
countries but is higher than the global average which may cause lesser demand.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Belgium and Russia have nearly 75% of the total
imports. India has negligible share in these countries and if these markets are tapped,
exports can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is higher than the Indian export price which
can be a huge benefit for exports in India.
Top Re-exporting nation of Banana in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 99.28% 45.26
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 595889319 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 424183539 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 46.27
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Banana in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Cananda 85.75% 64.91
Indonesia 8.46% 65
Slovakia 5.73% 264.22
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 13584 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 14189 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 67.89
Insights-
1- USA tops the world in imports of Banana at 63 Rs./Kg and also tops in re-exporting them at
45.26 Rs./Kg. Almost all re-exports of Banana in the world is done by USA.
2- Canada is a major re-importer of Banana but it has a low share in Banana exports.
22.0%
11.1%
9.1%
8.1%6.8%
43.0%
Contribution to total global imports of Banana in the world
USA
Belgium
RussianFederationGermany
Japan
Others
6356
49 48 48 47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Per Kg import value of Banana in Rs.
36
MANGO
Indian Rank in Mango Production in the world- 1st
MP’s Rank in India in production- 11th
A- Production Analysis
Production statistics of Mango-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 25.18 375.59
India 2474.84 17626.38
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 31.07 362.23
India 2515.97 18431.33
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 30.64 410.48
India 2163.47 18526.98
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 38.75 504.90
India 2208.56 18642.53
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 43.61 588.51
India 2212 19506
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 169.25 2241.71
India 11574.83 92733.23
14.9
11.713.4 13.0 13.5
7.1 7.38.6 8.4 8.8
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
37
Production Insights- 1- India ranks first in Mango production in the world but MP has a low share in Indian
production.
2- Mango production in MP is just around 2% of the Indian production.
3- Even though the area of production in India has decreased by 10.62% in the last 5
years, MP has increased its area of production by 73.17% in the last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 56.69% in the last 5 years while for India it
has increased by 10.66%. The increase in MP as compared to India is more due to the
increase in area.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost stable in the last 5 years with MP’s
productivity being higher than the Indian productivity. This may be due to the
favourable climatic situations in MP for Mango.
B. Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Mango in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 4163 375592 1.11%
2014 17103 362228 4.72%
2015 33357 410483 8.13%
2016 23715 504895 4.7%
2017 24968 588515 4.24%
Total 103304 2241713 4.61%
Price Trend- Mango
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 1000 1000 1000 1520 1200
Modal 1429 1500 1200 2000 1737
Maximum 2000 2050 1500 2500 2500
0500
10001500200025003000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
38
2017 Price Trend- Wholesale Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Key Districts Key Mandis Mandi Rank
Bhopal Bhopal 73.84%
Indore Indore 15.19%
Alirajpur Alirajpur 8.15%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have a low arrival % for Mango. The arrivals are 4-8% of the
production.
2- The production is increasing yet the arrivals are decreasing in MP.
3- 90% of the mangoes do not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The prices in Mandis are correlated to the arrivals. The prices were low when the
arrivals were the high and vice-versa.
5- The key mandis for Mangoes in MP are Bhopal mandi in Bhopal district, Indore
mandi in Indore district and Alirajpur Mandi in Alirajpur district. They constitute
more than 97% of the total arrivals in MP.
6- Only 10-11 Mandis have mango arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very low
number.
Key months for arrivals of Mango are April, May and June.
3894.43 3894.43
2833.83
2238.42
1252.32 1213.85
1813.09
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Mango- Rs./Quintal-2017
39
C. Exports
Forecasted Surplus of Mango in MP
Year Production Production after PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 618876 540278 138377 401902
2018-19 675689 589876 140963 448913
2019-20 732502 639474 143598 495876
2020-21 789315 689071 146283 542789
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 18 Lac MT for Mangoes in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Mango
Year Product Value (Rs. Lacs) Qty (MT) Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 Mango Pulp
84601.78 130886.1 64.64
2017-18 67392.13 110923.7 60.76
2016-17 Mango Fresh
44366 52760.99 84.09
2017-18 38234 49180.46 77.74
2016-17 Mango Squash
7480.12 11832.01 63.22
2017-18 4512.37 7005.88 64.41
Insights 1- The average price for exported Mango is around 3-4 times the modal price in Mandis.
This means that there is huge profit for exports.
2- MP mango exports are low as the varieties grown here are not much in demand in the
world.
3- Mango pulp is highly exported more than fresh mangoes, so processing units for
Mango pulp should be encouraged too as many Mango drink companies buy it in
bulk.
4- Mango is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
5- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Mango.
Mango export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 140666 160104 87.86%
2018-19 157119 176115 89.21%
2019-20 173557 193726 89.59%
2020-21 189976 213099 89.15%
40
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, the surplus has a
great share in all Indian mango exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in mango exports and can
highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and
improving fruit quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Mango from India (Mango Pulp)-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
Saudi Arabia 18350 13611 20.20% 32437 26759 24.12% 51
Yemen 8421 7237 10.74% 16670 15461 13.94% 47
Netherland 9414 7124 10.57% 13404 10986 9.90% 65
UK 6906 5687 8.43% 8985 7383 6.66% 77
Kuwait 4912 4197 6.23% 8364 7985 7.20% 53
USA 4502 4109 6.10% 5040 4731 4.26% 87
UAE 4954 2444 3.63% 8130 4270 3.85% 57
China 2064 2396 3.55% 2781 3187 2.87% 75
Germany 2473 2099 3.12% 2681 2264 2.04% 93
Sudan 1804 2060 3.06% 3216 4052 3.65% 51
Total top 10 63801 50956 75.61% 101708 87076 78.50% 59
Total 84602 67392 100% 130886 110924 100% 61
Insights
1- Almost 50% of mango pulp in terms of value is being exported just in 4 countries in
the Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Netherland and UK, hence we can prioritize these countries
as our major Export partners for mango pulp. Also UK pays a very high price for
mango pulp which is a benefit to us.
2- China imports around 4% of mango pulp which in turn means that we can exclusively
meet their demand as it would be transported through land and transportation would
be cheap. Also China pays a good price for mango pulp.
3- Germany, USA, UK and China are high paying countries hence we can try and
increase our export contribution to these countries.
4- Mango net exports has dropped by 20.30% in 2017-18 from 2016-17 which means we
need to find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian mangoes and rectify it.
5- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
41
Top 10 importing Nations of Mango from India (Mangoes Fresh)-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
UAE 24745 18458 48.28% 28483 23543 47.87% 78
UK 4957 4798 12.55% 3031 3729 7.58% 129
Saudi Arab 2446 2199 5.75% 2372 2671 5.43% 82
Qatar 2147 1981 5.18% 2254 2322 4.72% 85
USA 1549 1773 4.64% 616 801 1.63% 221
Kuwait 1911 1631 4.27% 1100 1300 2.64% 125
Oman 823 1588 4.15% 898 2231 4.54% 71
Nepal 1604 1512 3.95% 9415 7878 16.02% 19
Bahrain 979 908 2.37% 1086 1288 2.62% 70
Singapore 878 819 2.14% 841 841 1.71% 97
Total top 10 42037 35667 93.29% 50096 46602 94.76% 77
Total 44366 38234 100.00% 52761 49181 100.00% 78
Insights
1- Almost 60% of fresh mangoes in terms of value is being exported just in 2 countries in
the UAE and UK, hence we can prioritize these countries as our major Export partners for
fresh mangoes. Also UK pays a very high price for fresh mangoes which is a benefit to
us.
2- Nepal imports around 4% of fresh mangoes which in turn means that we can exclusively
meet their demand as it would be transported through land and transportation would be
cheap.
3- USA, UK and Kuwait are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our export
contribution to these countries.
4- Mango net exports has dropped by 13.82% in 2017-18 from 2016-17 which means we
need to find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian mangoes and rectify it.
5- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Mango in the world- (Competitors)- (2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 1342766029 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 1633447697 US $
28%
12%12%9%
5%
34%
Contribution to total global exports of Mango
Mexico
Brazil
Peru
India
Spain
Others
134
79 77 74 68 63
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Spain Globalaverage
Peru Brazil Mexico India
Per Kg export value of Mango in Rs.
42
Top 5 importing nations of Mango in the world (2017 Data)-
1. Total imports in 2017- 869321351 KG
2. Total import Value in 2017- 1812311903 US $
Insights-
1- India leads Mango production in the world yet it is ranked 4th in world exports having
just 9% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in the top 5 exporters which may create more
demand. This value is lower than the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Germany and UK have nearly 55% of the total
imports. India has a good share of this in UK and a low share in the US and Germany.
If these markets are tapped, exports can rise significantly.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Mango in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 46.75% 95.91
China, Hong Kong, SAR 46.61% 98.4
Canada 6.44% 104.7
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 34064344 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 54105649 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 103.24
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Mango in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Australia 35.55% 319.97
Egypt 31.96% 164.11
Slovakia 29.57% 267.94
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 11815 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 41536 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 228.51
Insights- 1- USA and China, Hong Kong are the largest re-exporters with 93% of the total re-exports.
2- Australia, Egypt and Slovakia are major re-importers but they have low share in exports.
Limitation- The world exports data available is a combination of mango, guava and
mangosteen. So the analysis may have some amount of error.
36%
11%9%6%
5%
33%
Contribution to total global imports of Mango
USA
Germany
United Kingdom
Canada
Spain
Others
164152
136 131 124106
020406080
100120140160180
Per Kg import value of Mango in Rs.
43
POMEGRANATE
Indian Rank in Pomegranate Production in the world- 1st
MP’s Rank in India in production- 5th
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Pomegranate-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 2.16 23.096
India 111.08 721.96
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 4.69 56.56
India 130.76 1345.72
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 6.128 74.34
India 180.63 1789.31
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 7.96 73.39
India 196.88 2306.44
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 9.35 103.52
India 216 2613
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 30.29 330.90
India 835.38 8776.43
10.6812.05 12.13
9.21
11.07
6.49
10.29 9.9
11.71 12.09
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
44
Production Insights- 1- India is a major producer for pomegranate in the world and MP produces
pomegranate in many districts contributing 3-4% share in Indian production.
2- The area of production in MP has increased by 332.7% in last 5 years while for India
it has increased by 94.44% which is a good sign for MP.
3- The production for MP has increased by 348.21% in the last 5 years while for India it
has increased by 261.93%.
4- The productivity of India has increased significantly by 86.14% in 5 years. In
comparison, MP has not done that well as productivity in MP has increased just by
3.59% in 5 years.
B. Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Pomegranate in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 748.94 23096 10.34%
2014 1981.47 56559 3.5%
2015 1427.6 74339 1.92%
2016 1301.53 73390 1.77%
2017 2387.73 103519 2.31%
Total 7098.33 330904.49 2.15%
Price Trend
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 2500 2000 2000 2000 1500
Modal 5000 4000 4000 4000 3624
Maximum 7000 5750 6000 6000 5000
010002000300040005000600070008000
Pri
ce-M
edia
n
Year
Mandi Price Trend- Median Prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
45
2017 price trend- Wholesale Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Indore Indore 58.21%
Bhopal Bhopal 36.19%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have negligible arrival % for pomegranate. The arrivals are just 2-3%
of the production.
2- The production is increasing by a huge extent and the arrivals are increasing too but
by a meagre change.
3- Pomegranate does not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The prices of pomegranate has been decreasing in the last 5 years which may be due
to the increase in arrivals.
5- The key mandis for pomegranate in MP are Indore mandi in Indore district and
Bhopal mandi in Bhopal district and they constitute more than 94% of the total
arrivals in MP.
6- Only 7-8 Mandis have pomegranate arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very
low number.
Pomegranate comes in the mandi all around the months with the key months
with major arrivals are in MP are September, October, November and
December.
5070 5070
6680
5223
4456 4456
2774 2774
3993 3993 3787
2663
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Pomegranate- Rs./Quintal- 2017
46
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus of pomegranate in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 119485 105146 47518 57628
2018-19 137253 120782 48406 72376
2019-20 155021 136418 49311 87107
2020-21 172789 152054 50232 101821
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus around 3 Lac MT for pomegranate in MP
which can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Pomegranate
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value-
Rs per kg
2016-17 Pomegranate
49144.30 49852.04 98.58
2017-18 53772.83 47335.71 113.6
Insights 1- The average price for exported pomegranate is more than 2 times the modal price in
Mandis. This means that there is high profit for exports.
2- Pomegranate is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can
take advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of pomegranate.
Pomegranate export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 20170 47335 42.61%
2018-19 25331 52069 48.65%
2019-20 30487 57276 53.23%
2020-21 35637 63003 56.56%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports then the surplus is around
half of the total Indian exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Pomegranate exports and can
highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving
fruit quality.
47
Top 10 importing Nations of Pomegranate from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
UAE 25229 23202 65.29% 20880 19799 19.39% 117.18
Nepal 1724 2346 6.6% 5144 8482 8.31% 27.66
Saudi Arabia 3040 3632 10.22% 2664 3888 3.81% 93.42
Netherland 2893 5813 16.36% 1300 2435 2.38% 238.74
Qatar 641 2201 6.19% 555 2077 2.03% 105.97
Oman 643 2794 7.86% 450 1947 1.91% 143.52
Sri Lanka 1030 1825 5.14% 956 1504 1.47% 121.36
Kuwait 1508 1507 4.24% 1187 1318 1.29% 114.31
UK 1393 1827 5.15% 369 447 0.44% 409.43
USA 1809 1965 5.53% 343 418 0.41% 470.4
Total 39819 35539 100% 112693 102112 100% 34.81
Insights
1- UAE is the major importer of pomegranate from India with a share of about 1/5 of the
total Indian exports.
2- Neighbouring countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka also import from us and we can
export more to them and transportation costs will be lower too.
3- UK, USA, and Netherland are high paying countries hence we can try and increase
our export contribution to these countries.
4- Pomegranate net exports has dropped by 9.39% in 2017-18 from 2016-17 which
means we need to find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian pomegranate and
rectify it.
5- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
Due to unavailability of world imports and exports of Pomegranate we
could not analyse it.
48
CUSTARD APPLE
MP’s Rank in India in production- 3rd
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Custard apple-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 2.68 34.08
India 19.55 135.63
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 3.16 39.84
India 21.77 165.15
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 5.56 56.04
India 29.87 228.37
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 5.91 68.67
India 36.83 298.00
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 12.48 147.19
India 44 383
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 29.79 345.82
India 152.02 1210.16
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
MP 12.7 12.6 10.1 11.6 11.8
India 6.9 7.6 7.7 8.1 8.7
0.02.04.06.08.0
10.012.014.0
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
49
Production Insights- 1- MP has a significant share in India’s production of Custard apple with many districts
producing Custard apple.
2- Around 25-30% of Indian production comes from MP.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 365.46% in last 5 years which is quite
high as compared to India’s which has increased by 125.03%.
4- Similarly the production for MP has increased by 331.89% in the last 5 years while
for India it has increased by 182.38%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost stable in the last 5 years with MP’s
productivity being a bit higher than the Indian productivity. This may be due to the
favourable climatic situations in MP for Custard apple.
B. Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Custard apple in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 NR 34080 --
2014 NR 39841 --
2015 678 56041 1.21%
2016 2084 68670 3.03%
2017 3.28 147187 0.00%
Total 2765.28 345820 0.8%
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Ujjain Ujjain >90%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have very negligible arrival % for Custard apple as compared to
production.
2- The production is increasing yet the arrivals do not have a specific increasing pattern.
3- Custard apple does not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- We could not analyse the price trend due to unavailability of data.
5- There is only one key mandi for Custard apple in MP that is Ujjain mandi in Ujjain
district and it constitutes more than 90% of the total arrivals in MP.
6- Only 2-3 Mandis have Custard apple arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very
low number.
October is the key month for arrival of Custard apple in Mandis.
50
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus of Custard apple in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 145675 128194 45736 82475
2018-19 171179 150637 46592 104046
2019-20 196683 173081 47462 125618
2020-21 222187 195524 48349 147175
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 4.5 Lac MT for Custard apples in MP
which can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Custard apple
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value-
Rs per kg
2016-17 Custard Apple
729.08 749.23 97.31
2017-18 681.37 780.04 87.35
Insights 1- The average price for exported Custard apple is more than the market price in India.
This means that there is profit potential for exports.
2- Custard apple is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP
can take advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Custard apple.
Custard apple export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 28860 780.04 3700%
2018-19 36416 858.04 4244%
2019-20 43966 943.84 4658%
2020-21 51511 1038.23 4961%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much
more than all Indian custard apple exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Custard apple exports and can
highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving
fruit quality.
51
Top 10 importing Nations of Custard apple from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
UAE 280.61 258.5 37.94% 288.44 280.37 35.94% 92
Oman 174.36 177.7 26.08% 179.65 205.17 26.3% 87
Saudi Arabia 112.09 69.04 10.13% 111.39 79.24 10.16% 87
Bahrain 52.56 58.03 8.52% 61.01 93.51 11.99% 62
Kuwait 45.26 50 7.34% 42 50.58 6.48% 99
Qatar 46.94 45.14 6.62% 51.08 49.28 6.32% 92
Singapore 13.48 19.02 2.79% 13.03 18.53 2.38% 103
Canada 2.43 1.86 0.27% 1.72 1.49 0.19% 125
Maldives 0.23 0.53 0.08% 0.19 0.46 0.06% 115
Norway 0.2 0.45 0.07% 0.25 0.52 0.07% 87
Total 729.08 681.37 99.84% 749.23 780.04 99.89% 87
Insights
1- Almost 80% of custard apple in terms of value is being exported just in 4 countries in
the Middle East & South East Asia and hence we can prioritize these countries as our
major Export partners for custard apple.
2- Canada, Maldives and Singapore are high paying countries hence we can try and
increase our export contribution to these countries.
3- Custard apple net exports by quantity has increased by 4.11% in 2017-18 from 2016-
17 but in value terms it has decreased by 6.54% in the same period.
4- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it doesn’t
shock local market with excess supply.
Due to unavailability of world imports and exports of Pomegranate
we could not analyse it.
52
VEGETABLES
53
Onion
Indian Rank in onion Production in the world- 2nd
MP’s Rank in India in production- 2nd
A. Production Analysis9
Production statistics of Onion-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 111.73 2691.07
India 1051.53 16813.01
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 111.44 2422.91
India 1203.57 19401.68
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 117.58 2677.95
India 1173.35 18927.41
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 147.87 3413.49
India 1320.04 20931.21
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 150.84 3821.05
India 1306.00 22427.00
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 639.46 15026.47
India 6054.47 98500.30
9 Horticulture at a glance and Data from MP government
24.09
21.7422.78 23.08
25.33
15.99 16.12 16.13 15.8617.17
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
pro
du
ctiv
ity
Productivity (MT/Ha)
54
Production insights
1- India is a major producer for onion and MP has the second largest share in
India’s production with a whole belt of districts producing Onion.
2- Onion production in MP is around 17% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 580% in last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 600% in the last 5 years while for
India it has increased by 500%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost stable in the last 5 years with MP’s
productivity being a bit higher than the Indian productivity.
B. Mandi Analysis10
Arrival trend of Onion in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 519419.91 2691066 19.30%
2014 1337921.88 2422914 55.22%
2015 1339265.96 2677954 50.01%
2016 1592988.96 3413488 46.67%
2017 2587607.08 3821046 67.72%
Total 7377203.79 15026468 49.09%
Price Trend
10 http://agmarknet.gov.in/
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 600 400 600 300 400
Modal 1000 750 900 500 500
Maximum 1200 1000 1200 650 700
0200400600800
100012001400
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
55
2017 price trend- Wholesale prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Indore Indore 29.00%
Shajapur shujalpur 21.90%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have 49% arrival for Onion out of the total production.
2- The production and arrivals are increasing for onions.
3- Half of the onions are sold outside Mandis directly to customers, private markets,
exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The prices in mandis have decreased in the past 5 years due to increase in arrivals.
5- The 2017 price trend graph shows the seasonality factor in the price fluctuations. We
see that the prices are lowest in the beginning of the year and they keep increasing
throughout the year.
6- The key mandis for Onion in MP are Indore & shujalpur mandi in Indore & Shajapur
district and they constitute more than 51% of the total arrivals in MP.
7- MP has 2 key Mandis that have Onion arrivals in the last 5 years, other mandis have
arrivals but their contribution is less than 5% per head.
The key months for arrivals of Onion in MP are all 12 months, as considerable
arrivals are their all year long.
547442 498 408
772 772
1096 1096
1630 1630
2492 2492
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Onion- Rs./Quintal- 2017
56
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 3950324.00 3626397.43 780275.00 2846122.43
2018-19 4275378.00 3924797.00 794860.69 3129936.32
2019-20 4600432.00 4223196.58 809719.02 3413477.56
2020-21 4925486.00 4521596.15 824855.09 3696741.05
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 36 Lac MT for Onions in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Onion11
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 070310 ONIONS
AND SHALLOTS
FRESH OR
CHILLED
3,20,665.02 2465885 13.00
2017-18 3,15,730.01 1606295 19.66
2016-17 071220 ONIONS
DRIED
74520.69 66655 111.80
2017-18 59196.74 63336 93.46
2016-17 12099130 ONION
SEEDS USED
FOR SOWING
1985.85 329 603.60
2017-18 1818.62 297 612.33
Insights 1- The average price for exported Onion with value addition is considerably more on
average than the modal price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit
for exports with value addition.
2- Onion is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Onion.
4- Major export of onion is in the form of green/spring onions where arrivals are
negligible & hence we are not a player in that market. This is a opportunity for us to
sell more of our product at better prices.
11 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
57
Onion export potential
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 996142.85 1669631.0 59.66%
2018-19 1095477.71 1836594.1 59.65%
2019-20 1194717.15 2020253.5 59.14%
2020-21 1293859.37 2222278.9 58.22%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much
more than all Indian Onion exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Onion exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving produce
quality.
Top importing Nations from India for Onion & Shallots- Fresh/Chilled12
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-
18 % 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-
18 %
BANGLADESH
PR 97590.930 59951.830 19% 846869.880 333165.470 21% 17.995
MALAYSIA 53492.610 60432.320 19% 397539.190 283409.560 18% 21.323
SRI LANKA
DSR 29776.040 60546.260 19% 218796.100 236841.300 15% 25.564
U ARAB EMTS 40109.740 41773.980 13% 303222.400 226580.190 14% 18.437
NEPAL 16311.050 14363.340 5% 133530.160 100150.950 6% 14.342
INDONESIA 11430.210 11130.430 4% 81871.820 65478.270 4% 16.999
QATAR 9484.900 10456.460 3% 70427.920 54086.720 3% 19.333
KUWAIT 8957.830 7511.400 2% 65697.940 52196.630 3% 14.391
SAUDI ARAB 7717.270 5802.630 2% 59614.530 45055.380 3% 12.879
VIETNAM
SOC REP 5186.860 7476.880 2% 44881.010 44112.000 3% 16.950
Total(all
countries) 320665.020 315730.010 2465885.07 1606295.19 19.656
Insights
1- Almost 94% of Onion in terms of value is being exported just in Asian countries in
the Middle East & South East Asia at prices not as good as EU and US, hence we
should prioritize EU & USA as we already have good exports to these countries as
our major Export partners for Onion.
2- Bangladesh imports 21% of fresh and dry Onion which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land.
3- Qatar, UAE are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our export
contribution to these countries.
12 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
58
4- Onion net exports has decreased by 17% in terms of quantity in 2017-18 from 2016-
17 but the value has almost remained the same which means we are getting better
prices for our crop.
5- New markets should be explored to keep up the export quantity and prices stable so
that it doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Onion in the world- (Competitors)-
(2017 Data)-13
1- Total exports in 2017- 4330649547 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 2167784432 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Onion in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 5294704006 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 2549990882 US $
Insights- 1- India is ranked second in Onion production in the world and it is ranked 2nd in world
exports having 16.6% of the total world exports.
13 https://comtrade.un.org/data/
17.8%
16.6%
10.1%9.5%6.0%
39.9%
Contribution of total global exports of Onion in the world
Mexico
India
USA
Egypt
Spain
Others
60
44
3330
2519
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mexico USA GlobalAverage
Egypt Spain India
Per Kg export value of Onion in Rs.
17.1%
6.8%
6.8%
5.7%
5.4%
58.3%
Contribution of total global imports of Onion in the world
USA
Malaysia
UnitedKingdomGermany
Canada
Others
4740 39
33 31
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
Per Kg import value of Onion in Rs.
59
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in the top 5 exporters which means that with
more supply we increase our export contribution because we have cost advantage.
The export value per kg value is lower than the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Malaysia and UK have nearly 31% of the total
imports. India has negligible share of this in US and UK, If these markets are tapped,
exports can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a huge
benefit for exports in India.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Onion in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 97.35% 98
China, Hong Kong 1.12% 58
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 25728984 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 37926981 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 96
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Onion in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Slovakia 71.52% 20
Egypt 12.72% 39
Italy 7.87% 25
4- Total re-imports in 2017- 5366889 KG
5- Total re-import Value in 2017- 2045199 US $
6- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 25
Insights- 1- USA and China, Hong Kong are the largest re-exporters with 98.5% of the total re-
exports.
2- Slovakia, Egypt and Italy are major re-importers but they have low share in exports.
3- We can see that the export price is Rs. 33, the import price is Rs. 31, the re-export price is Rs.
96 and the re-import price is Rs. 25.
60
POTATO
Indian Rank in Potato Production in the world- 2nd
MP’s Rank in India in production- 5th
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Potato-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT) MP prod %
of India
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 108.9 2299.0 5.07%
India 1992.2 45343.6
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 114.2 2435.8 5.86%
India 1973.2 41555.4
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 125.4 2578.0 5.37%
India 2075.9 48009.2
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 135.3 2828.0 6.51%
India 2116.9 43417.0
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 160.0 3461.0 7.12%
India 2179.0 48605.0
2012-17
Total
Madhya Pradesh 643.8 13601.8 5.99%
India 10337.2 226930.2
61
Production Insights-
1- India is a major producer for Potato and MP has the fifth largest share in
India’s production.
2- Potato production in MP is around 6% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 50% in last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 50% in the last 5 years while for India
it has increased by 8%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is not stable at all in the last 5 years with
MP’s productivity being a bit more stable but less than the Indian productivity.
B. Mandi Analysis Arrival trend of Potato in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 142671.52 2299008 6.21%
2014 178479.41 2435791 7.33%
2015 245731.38 2578038 9.53%
2016 230285.23 2828020.47 8.14%
2017 283105.84 3460980.46 8.18%
Total 1080273.38 13601837.93 7.94%
21.1221.32
20.5620.90
21.63
22.76
21.06
23.13
20.51
22.31
19.00
19.50
20.00
20.50
21.00
21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
62
Price Trend
2017 price trend- Wholesale Monthly prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Bhopal Bhopal 20.92
Indore Indore 32.48
Jabalpur Jabalpur 12.61
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 600 800 500 600 310
Modal 800 1100 600 825 450
Maximum 1000 1200 750 1000 570
0200400600800
100012001400
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
458
403 390 390
463 463
417 412389
347
455
394
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Potato- Rs./Quintal- 2017
63
Mandi Insights
1- Mandis in MP have 8% arrival for Potato of total production.
2- The production is increasing so are the arrivals but the percentage contribution of
production coming to mandis has remained the same.
3- Most of the potatoes are sold outside Mandis directly to customers, private markets,
exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- There is decrease in prices in Mandis in MP in the last 5 years due to increase in
arrivals.
5- 2017 whole price trend graph is shown to see the seasonality factor in price
fluctuations. We see that almost throughout the year potato prices stable and don’t
fluctuate much.
6- The key mandis for Potato in MP are Indore & Bhopal mandi in Indore & Bhopal
district and they constitute more than 51% of the total arrivals in MP.
The key months for arrivals of Potato in MP are all 12 months, as considerable
arrivals are their all year long.
C. Exports
Forecasted Surplus in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 3629702.00 3303028.82 1375196.17 1927832.65
2018-19 3901319.00 3550200.29 1400902.72 2149297.57
2019-20 4172936.00 3797371.76 1427089.79 2370281.97
2020-21 4444553.00 4044543.23 1453766.38 2590776.85
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 25 Lac MT for Potatoes in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Potato
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 070190 POTATOES
FRESH OR CHILLED
OTHER THAN SEEDS
66,147.51 396332.67 16.69
2017-18 41,182.48 395720.45 10.41
2016-17 200410 POTATOE
S PRPD/PRSVD,
FRZN
4102.65 5380.29 76.25
2017-18 11112.57 14705.69 75.57
2017-18 1818.62 297 612.33
64
Insights 1- The average price for exported Potato with value addition is considerably more on
average than the modal price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit
for exports with value addition.
2- Potato is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Potato.
4- Major export of Potato is in the form of Potato Fresh or Chilled, Dehydrated Potato
powder, Dehydrated Potato flakes, flour and meal of potatoes, starch of
potato potatoes cooked or uncooked frozen where arrivals are negligible & hence we
are not a player in that market. This is a opportunity for us to sell more of our product
at better prices.
Potato export potential
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 674741.43 410426.14 164%
2018-19 752254.15 451468.75 167%
2019-20 829598.69 496615.63 167%
2020-21 906771.90 546277.19 166%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much
more than all Indian Potato exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Potato exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving produce
quality.
Top importing Nations from India for Potatoes- Fresh/Chilled
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-
18 % 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-
18 %
NEPAL 49,379.02 20,301.37 49.30% 3,11,212.47 2,74,153.75 69.28% 7.41
SRI LANKA
DSR
5,694.18 7,288.11 17.70%
32,277.86 49,066.06 12.40% 14.85
OMAN 3,276.78 3,258.59 7.91% 16,838.34 19,619.73 4.96% 16.61
MALAYSIA 1,339.09 1,651.08 4.01% 6,626.83 8,496.01 2.15% 19.43
MAURITIUS 1,764.74 1,859.86 4.52% 7,280.00 8,485.00 2.14% 21.92
KUWAIT 1,478.50 1,393.92 3.38% 7,143.68 7,910.83 2.00% 17.62
INDONESIA 109.42 1,711.02 4.15% 453 7,591.00 1.92% 22.54
65
U ARAB EMTS 891.02 883.33 2.14% 4,875.58 5,854.36 1.48% 15.09
MALDIVES 1,265.86 1,127.86 2.74% 5,276.86 5,589.78 1.41% 20.18
VIETNAM SOC
REP
42.28 458.01 1.11%
230 2,254.00 0.57% 20.32
Total 66,147.51 41,182.48 396332.67 395720.45 10.41
Top importing Nations from India for Potatoes- Prepared/Preserved
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
THAILAND 290.92 2,011.75 18.10% 316.6 3,238.64 22.02% 62.12
CHINA P RP 93 2,202.03 19.82% 147.12 3,162.50 21.51% 69.63
PAKISTAN IR 1,958.48 2,343.97 21.09% 2,668.29 3,056.37 20.78% 76.69
AUSTRALIA 37.05 1,716.81 15.45% 38.62 2,015.79 13.71% 85.17
SOUTH
AFRICA
436.98 631.23 5.68%
618.36 810.02 5.51% 77.93
NEW
ZEALAND
11.87 517.53 4.66%
11.55 584.76 3.98% 88.50
MALAYSIA 399.26 307.42 2.77% 586.95 561.92 3.82% 54.71
NEPAL 199.09 328.37 2.95% 207.82 266.04 1.81% 123.43
SRI LANKA
DSR
102.83 191.68 1.72%
143.18 243.08 1.65% 78.85
SAUDI ARAB 183.37 142.77 1.28% 247.11 191.74 1.30% 74.46
Total 4,102.65 11,112.57 100.00% 5380.29 14705.69 100.00% 75.57
Insights
1- Almost 72% of Potato in terms of value is being exported just in Asian countries in
the Middle East & South East Asia at prices not as good as EU and US, hence we
should prioritize EU & USA as we already have good exports to these countries as
our major Export partners for Potato.
2- Nepal imports 70% of fresh and dry Potato which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land.
3- Mauritius, Indonesia are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our
export contribution to these countries.
4- Preserved & frozen potato fetches a better value than fresh potato we should try and
increase our share in this products market.
66
5- Potato net exports has decreased by 33% in terms of value in 2017-18 from 2016-17
but quantity has almost remained the same which means we are getting lower prices
for our crop.
6- New markets should be explored to keep up the export quantity and prices stable so
that it doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Potato in the world- (Competitors)-
(2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 7060017469 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 2156854790 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Potato in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 7702276451 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 2687322732 US $
Insights- 1- India is 2nd in Potato production in the world yet it is not ranked in top 5exporters in
world exports having just 5.19cggtf% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in comparison the top 5 exporters which may
create more demand. This value is lower than the global average too.
18.0%
12.6%
11.1%
11.1%9.7%
37.5%
Contribution of total global exports of Potato in the world
Germany
Egypt
USA
Canada
Belgium
Others
2926
2320
14 13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Per Kg export value of Potato in Rs.
18.8%
9.0%
8.7%
7.1%
4.5%
51.9%
Contribution of total global imports of Potato in the world
Belgium
Germany
USA
Italy
UnitedKingdomOthers
37
2826
2320
15
05
10152025303540
Per Kg import value of Potato in Rs.
67
3- The top 3 importing countries Belgium, US, Germany have nearly 37% of the total
imports. India has negligible share of this in Belgium, US and Germany. If these
markets are tapped, exports can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a huge
benefit for exports in India.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Potato in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
Jordan 71.75% 24
USA 10.22% 47
Namibia 9.37% 43
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 5589055 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 2352246 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 27
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Potato in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Slovakia 37.58% 22
Canada 33.14% 42
Russia 10.58% 13
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 568181 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 294051 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 34
Insights- 1- USA and Jordan, Namibia are the largest re-exporters with 92% of the total re-
exports.
2- Canada, Russia and Slovakia are major re-importers but they have low share in
exports.
3- We can see that the export price is Rs. 20, the import price is Rs. 23, the re-export price is Rs.
27 and the re-import price is Rs. 34.
68
TOMATO
Indian Rank in Tomato Production in the world- 2nd
MP’s Rank in India in production- 1st
4- Production Analysis
Production statistics of Tomato-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT) MP prod %
of India
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 62.59 1845.07 10.12%
India 879.63 18226.64
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 66.46 1634.57 8.72%
India 882.03 18735.91
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 71.88 1633.31 9.97%
India 767.32 16384.98
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 74.80 1923.09 10.27%
India 773.88299 18731.96743
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 95.39542 2722.68298 13.15%
India 797 20708
2012-17
Total
Madhya Pradesh 371.13 9758.72 10.52%
India 4099.86 92787.49
69
Production Insights 1- India is a major producer for Tomato and MP has the largest share in India’s
production.
2- Tomato production in MP is around 10.5% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 53% in last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 50% in the last 5 years while for India it has
decreased by 9.5%.
5- The productivity of India and MP has been rising for the last 3 years with MP’s
productivity being a bit higher than the Indian productivity.
B. Mandi Analysis Arrival trend of Tomato in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 35695.52 533998.00 6.68%
2014 537156.82 672226.00 79.91%
2015 166183.62 775841.00 21.42%
2016 136419.22 836365.95 16.31%
2017 71803.84 957601.58 7.50%
Total 947259.02 3776032.53 25.09%
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
MP 29.5 24.6 22.7 25.7 28.5
India 20.7 21.2 21.4 24.2 26.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
70
Price Trend
2017 price trend- Wholesale prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Jabalpur Jabalpur 9.70%
Shivpuri Shivpuri 63.75%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 700 600 800 700 600
Modal 900 800 1000 850 800
Maximum 1000 1000 1200 1000 1000
0200400600800
100012001400
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
324 324605 605
922 922
3273
2205
943 943
1278
654
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Tomato- Rs./Quintal- 2017
71
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have 25% arrival for Tomato of total production.
2- The production is increasing so are the arrivals except for last year but the percentage
contribution of production coming to mandis has no trend.
3- Tomato reaches the Mandis as well as lot of it is sold outside Mandis directly to
customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- There is some price fluctuations in Mandis in MP in the last 5 years as arrivals have
increased.
5- The wholesale price trend 2017 graph is shown to depict the seasonality factor in
price fluctuations. We see that the tomato prices are low in January and February and
they start increasing from March with peak in July thereafter again decreasing till
December.
6- The key mandis for Tomato in MP are Shivpuri & Jabalpur mandi in Shivpuri &
Jabalpur district and they constitute more than 74% of the total arrivals in MP.
The key months for arrivals of Tomato in MP are all 12 months, as considerable
arrivals are their all year long.
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 2747378 2406703 751237 1655466
2018-19 2823458 2473349 765279 1708070
2019-20 2891063 2532571 779585 1752986
2020-21 2952037 2585984 794158 1791827
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 18 Lac MT for Tomatoes in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Tomato
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 070200 TOMATOES
FRESH OR CHILLED
54,815.65 267515.43 20.49
2017-18 11,421.90 47446.09 24.07
72
Insights 1- The average price for exported Tomato with value addition is considerably more on
average than the modal price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit
for exports with value addition.
2- Tomato is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Tomato.
4- Major export of Tomato is in the form of Tomato Fresh or Chilled.
5- Tomato has good arrivals at mandi level & hence we can be a player in that market.
This is a opportunity for us to sell more of our product at better prices.
Tomato export potential
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 579413.25 47446.09 12.21
2018-19 597824.49 52190.70 11.45
2019-20 613545.20 57409.77 10.69
2020-21 627139.33 63150.75 9.93
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much
more than all Indian Tomato exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Tomato exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving produce
quality.
Top importing Nations from India for Tomatoes- Fresh/Chilled
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
% 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
%
U ARAB EMTS 8945.89 6450.95 56.48% 30784.72 19960.65 42.07% 32.32
NEPAL 1610.82 2208.26 19.33% 14687.77 18799.66 39.62% 11.75
QATAR 44.67 1027.94 9.00% 158.82 2670.57 5.63% 38.49
BANGLADESH
PR 6659.33 518.76 4.54% 29082.91 2473.54 5.21% 20.97
OMAN 194.6 541.98 4.75% 659.23 1800.89 3.80% 30.10
MALDIVES 480.34 583.08 5.10% 1152.4 1218.74 2.57% 47.84
PAKISTAN IR 36845.47 34.11 0.30% 190739.7 265 0.56% 12.87
SINGAPORE 0.36 35.22 0.31% 1.15 112.3 0.24% 31.36
73
BHUTAN 4.99 2.22 0.02% 155.57 55.34 0.12% 4.01
MALAYSIA 2.55 0.02% 30.1 0.06% 8.47
Total 54815.65 11421.9 100.00% 267515.43 47446.09 100.00% 24.07
Insights
1- 81% of Tomato in terms of quantity & 76% in terms of value is being exported just to
UAE & Nepal at prices not as good as EU and US, hence we should prioritize EU &
USA as we already have good exports to these countries as our major Export partners
for Tomato.
2- Nepal imports 40% of fresh and chilled Tomato which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land.
3- Maldives & Qatar are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our export
contribution to these countries.
4- Preserved & frozen Tomato fetches a better value than fresh Tomato we should try
and increase our share in this products market.
5- Tomato net exports has decreased by 80% in terms of value in 2017-18 from 2016-17
& quantity has reduced by 92%, this is not good for our market as it would lead to
domestic flooding & prices to dive.
6- Pakistan imported 190739 Mt in 2016-17 & 265 Mt in 2017-18 which lead to excess
supply in the market.
7- New markets should be explored to keep up the export quantity and prices stable so
that it doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Tomato in the world- (Competitors)-
(2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 4803769732 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 5474300763 US $
35.5%
20.7%
7.6%
6.1%
5.6%
24.6%
Contribution of total global exports of Tomato in the world
Mexico
Spain
Canada
USA
Belgium
Others
133
10691 90
74 72
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Canada USA Spain Belgium GlobalAverage
Mexico
Per Kg export value of Tomato in Rs.
74
Top 5 importing nations of Tomato in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 5154003664 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 7311449657 US $
Insights- 1- India leads Tomato production in the world yet does not feature in top 5 exporters in
the world, having just 0.93% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in comparison to the top 5 exporters which
may create more demand. This value is also lower than the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Germany and UK have nearly 60% of the total
imports. India has no share of this in UK, US and Germany. If these markets are
tapped, exports can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a huge
benefit for exports in India.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Tomato in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 69.76% 118
Canada 30.06% 174
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 155088970 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 310769143 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 130
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Tomato in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Slovakia 76.39% 95
Canada 8.46% 110
Azerbaijan 5.73% 948
31.1%
20.1%
9.2%
7.6%
4.6%
27.5%
Contribution of total global imports of Tomato in the world
USA
Germany
UK
Russia
Canada
Others
132
109101 96 92
70
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Per Kg import value of Tomato in Rs.
75
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 2483648 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 3912898 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 102
Insights-
1- USA and Canada are the largest re-exporters with 99.82% of the total re-
exports.
2- Slovakia, Canada & Azerbaijan and are major re-importers but they have low
share in exports.
3- We can see that the export price is Rs. 74, the import price is Rs. 92, the re-export
price is Rs. 130 and the re-import price is Rs. 102.
76
PEAS
Indian Rank in Peas Production in the world- 2nd
MP’s Rank in India in production- 2nd
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Peas-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT) MP prod %
of India
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 53.45 534.00 13.33%
India 420.90 4006.17
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 71.54 672.23 17.38%
India 433.56 3868.63
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 80.85 775.84 16.68%
India 475.89 4651.53
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 87.44 836.37 17.39%
India 497.57 4810.77
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 95.21 957.60 17.92%
India 530.00 5345.00
2012-17
Total
Madhya Pradesh 388.47 3776.03 16.65%
India 2357.92 22682.11
77
Production Insights- 1- India is a major producer for Peas and MP has the second largest share in India’s
production.
2- Peas production in MP is around 17% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 85% in last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 85% in the last 5 years while for India it has
increased by 28%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost same, MP was ahead but India has caught
up in the last 5 years with MP’s productivity.
B. Mandi Analysis Arrival trend of Peas in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 6908.60 533998.00 1.29%
2014 18399.71 672226.00 2.74%
2015 34910.00 775841.00 4.50%
2016 41804.68 836365.95 5.00%
2017 27276.40 957601.58 2.85%
Total 129299.39 3776032.53 3.42%
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
MP 9.9 9.4 9.6 9.6 10.1
India 9.5 8.9 9.8 9.7 10.1
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
78
Price Trend
2017 Price trend- Monthly wholesale prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Gwalior Lashkar 16.03%
Jabalpur Jabalpur 67.88%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 2500 2551 2155.5 1760 1000
Modal 2750 3170 2585 2000 1168
Maximum 2926 3400 2800 2200 1358
0500
1000150020002500300035004000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
784 784
2504 2504 2395 23952671 2671
3832
1663
23191984
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Green Peas- Rs./Quintal- 2017
79
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have 3.42% arrival for Peas of total production.
2- The production is increasing so are the arrivals but the percentage contribution of
production coming to mandis has remained the same.
3- Peas reaches the Mandis as well as most of it is sold outside Mandis directly to
customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- There is price fluctuations in Mandis in MP in the last 5 years as arrivals have
increased.
5- The 2017 price trend shows the trend of prices considering the seasonality of price
fluctuations. We see that the prices are lowest in January and February and they
constantly rise from then with peak in September and then again decreasing.
6- The key mandis for Peas in MP are Lashkar & Jabalpur mandi in Gwalior & Jabalpur
district and they constitute more than 84% of the total arrivals in MP.
The key months for arrivals of Peas in MP are October, November December,
January, February.
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 1058612 949575 131418 818157
2018-19 1159747 1040293 133875 906418
2019-20 1260882 1131011 136377 994634
2020-21 1362017 1221729 138927 1082802
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 10 Lac MT for Peas in MP which can
be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Peas
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 071021 PEAS
SHELLED OR
UNSHELLED,FRZN
2,814.49 4435.31 63.46
2017-18 4,529.43 8102.29 55.90
80
Insights 1- The average price for exported Peas with value addition is considerably more on average than
the modal price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit for exports with
value addition.
2- Peas is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take advantage
of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Peas.
4- Major export of Peas is in the form of shelled, unshelled and frozen.
Peas export potential
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 286354.82 8102.29 35.34
2018-19 317246.34 8912.52 35.60
2019-20 348121.79 9803.77 35.51
2020-21 378980.87 10784.15 35.14
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much more than
all Indian Peas exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Peas exports and can highly increase
Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving produce quality.
Top importing Nations from India for Peas
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
% 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
%
SAUDI ARAB 828.13 1,542.28 34.05% 1,703.73 3,693.46 45.59% 41.76
U ARAB
EMTS
403.66 649.86 14.35%
651.04 1,269.05 15.66% 51.21
U S A 775.38 839.76 18.54% 737.11 794.64 9.81% 105.68
NEPAL 232.92 214.21 4.73% 493.56 415.1 5.12% 51.60
KUWAIT 53.43 179.08 3.95% 105.25 413.44 5.10% 43.31
QATAR 58.11 218.93 4.83% 95.17 401.92 4.96% 54.47
BAHARAIN IS 50.81 93.26 2.06% 74.88 185.6 2.29% 50.25
OMAN 71.79 106.28 2.35% 106.18 185.38 2.29% 57.33
U K 4.61 262.74 5.80% 7.98 151.96 1.88% 172.90
CANADA 81.02 111.03 2.45% 95.29 115.25 1.42% 96.34
Total 2,814.49 4,529.43 100.00% 4435.31 8102.29 100.00% 55.90
81
Insights
1- Almost 62% of Peas in terms of value is being exported just in Asian countries
in the Middle East & South East Asia and we can focus on these countries.
2- Nepal imports 5% of fresh and frozen Peas which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land.
3- UK & USA are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our export
contribution to these countries.
4- Preserved & frozen peas fetches a better value than fresh peas we should try
and increase our share in this products market.
5- Peas net exports has increased by 60% in terms of value in 2017-18 from 2016-
17 & quantity by 80% which means we are getting lower prices for our crop.
6- New markets should be explored to keep up the export quantity and prices
stable so that it doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Peas in the world- (Competitors)- (2017
Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 310807444 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 197214886 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Peas in the world (2017 Data)-
29.6%
22.6%
9.8%
9.4%
5.1%
23.5%
Contribution of total global exports of Peas in the world
USA
Ukraine
Peru
Mexico
Belgium
Others
251237
100
6141
14
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
USA Peru Belgium Mexico GlobalAverage
Ukraine
Per Kg export value of Peas in Rs.
21.7%
18.0%
17.9%
15.4%
8.3%
18.6%
Contribution of total global imports of Peas in the world
USA
Canada
UK
Belgium
Germany
Others
301272
251
172
98
26
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Per Kg import value of Peas in Rs.
82
1- Total imports in 2017- 211855545 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 320731698 US $
Insights-
1- India is 2nd in Peas production in the world yet it is not ranked in top 5 in the
world, having just 2.6% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in comparison to the top 5 exporters
which may create more demand.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Canada and UK have nearly 57% of the total
imports. India has negligible share of this. If these markets are tapped, exports
can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a
huge benefit for exports in India.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Peas in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 92.43% 310
Uganda 7.17% 84
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 6341152 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 25205384 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 258
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Peas in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Slovakia 98.63% 118
Canada 1.37% 235
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 23363 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 42747 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 119
Insights-
4- USA and Uganda are the largest re-exporters with 99.6% of the total re-
exports.
5- Canada and Slovakia are major re-importers but they have low share in exports.
6- We can see that the export price is Rs. 41, the import price is Rs. 98, the re-export
price is Rs. 258 and the re-import price is Rs. 119.
83
GREEN CHILLY
Indian Rank in Chilli Production in the world- 2nd
MP’s Rank in India in production- 2nd
A-Production Analysis
Production statistics of Chilli-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 119.6 787.0
India 140.0 1687.3
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 119.2 679.2
India 181.4 1997.7
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 32.9 515.2
India 292.1 2955.4
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 43.1 701.6
India 316.0 3634.0
2012-17
Total
Madhya Pradesh 314.80 2683.08
India 10337.2 226930.2
84
Production Insights-
1- India is a major producer for Chilli and MP has the second largest share in
India’s production.
2- Chilli production in MP is around 26% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has decreased by 60% in last 4 years.
4- The production for MP has decreased by 12% in the last 4 years while for
India it has increased by 120%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is not stable at all in the last 5 years with
MP’s productivity has grown at a considerable rate and has taken a lead
over the Indian productivity.
B-Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Chilli in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 11221.84 #DIV/0!
2014 15086.63 787011 1.92%
2015 20319.57 679246 2.99%
2016 3095.69 515204.87 0.60%
2017 30230.32 701616.5 4.31%
Total 79954.05 2683078.37 2.98%
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
MP 6.6 5.7 15.7 16.3
India 12.1 11.0 10.1 11.5
0.02.04.06.08.0
10.012.014.016.018.0
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
85
Price Trend
2017 price trend- Wholesale Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Bhopal Bhopal 32.01%
Gwalior Lashkar 16.57%
Indore Indore 17.30%
Jabalpur Jabalpur 18.32%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 1000 1000 1000 700 1000
Modal 1200 1200 1400 850 1500
Maximum 1500 1600 1683 1000 1800
0
500
1000
1500
2000P
rice
-M
edia
n
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
1012895
1194 11941388 1388
2239
1784
1404 1404 1344 1288
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Mnthly Prices Trend- Green Chilly- Rs./Quintal-2017
86
Mandi Insights
1- Mandis in MP have 3% arrival for Chilli of total production.
2- The production has decreased and the arrivals is unstable & the percentage
contribution of production coming to mandis is minimal.
3- A very small portion of Chilli reaches the Mandis as most of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- There is price fluctuations in Mandis in MP in the last 5 years with erratic arrivals.
5- The graph of wholesale price trend for 2017 is shown to view the seasonality factor in
price fluctuations. We see that the least in February, maximum in July and August and
almost stable in the remaining months.
6- The key mandis for Chilli in MP are Bhopal, Lashkar, Indore, Jabalpur mandi in
Bhopal, Gwalior, Indore, Jabalpur district and they constitute more than 75% of the
total arrivals in MP.
The key months for arrivals of Chilli in MP are all 12 months, as considerable
arrivals are their all year long.
C-Exports
Forecasted Surplus in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 710011.40 591084.49 164610.48 426474.01
2018-19 718506.74 598156.86 167687.54 430469.32
2019-20 727103.73 605313.86 170822.13 434491.73
2020-21 735803.59 612556.49 174015.30 438541.18
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 4 Lac MT for Chillies in MP which can
be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Chilli
Year Product Value (Rs.
Lacs) Qty (MT)
Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 07096010 GREEN
CHILLY
21,707.70 45008.27 48.23
2017-18 22,074.05 44903.25 49.16
Insights 1- The average price for exported Chilli is considerably more on average than the modal
price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit for exports.
87
2- Chilli is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Chilli.
4- Major export of Chilli is in the form of Green Chilli.
Chilli export potential
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 149265.90 44903.25 3.32
2018-19 150664.26 49393.58 3.05
2019-20 152072.11 54332.93 2.80
2020-21 153489.41 59766.23 2.57
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much
more than all Indian Chilli exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Chilli exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving produce
quality.
Top importing Nations from India for Chilli Fresh
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
% 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
%
U ARAB EMTS 14,200.02 13,017.11 58.97% 25,648.30 24,377.79 54.29% 53.40
BANGLADESH
PR
2,149.39 1,353.05 6.13%
10,760.28 8,717.40 19.41% 15.52
OMAN 343.11 2,242.89 10.16% 447.92 3,523.56 7.85% 63.65
QATAR 1,044.06 1,686.93 7.64% 1,615.66 2,731.42 6.08% 61.76
U K 1,894.99 2,138.47 9.69% 2,577.24 2,412.18 5.37% 88.65
BAHARAIN IS 596.24 758.62 3.44% 1,148.12 1,602.43 3.57% 47.34
NEPAL 126.45 102.66 0.47% 961.45 505.74 1.13% 20.30
ITALY 173.91 132.91 0.60% 276.79 184.71 0.41% 71.96
BELGIUM 167.68 163.8 0.74% 187.26 183.49 0.41% 89.27
GERMANY 285.94 116.92 0.53% 342.83 169.27 0.38% 69.07
Total 21,707.70 22,074.05 100.00% 45008.27 44903.25 100.00% 49.16
88
Insights
1- Almost 85% of Chilli in terms of value is being exported just in Asian countries in the
Middle East & South East Asia at prices not as good as EU and US, hence we should
prioritize EU & USA as we already have good exports to these countries as our major
Export partners for Chilli.
2- UAE imports 59% of green at prices above global average.
3- Belgium & UK are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our export
contribution to these countries.
4- Chilli net exports has increased by 4% in terms of value in 2017-18 from 2016-17 but
quantity has decreased which means we are getting better prices for our crop.
5- New markets should be explored to keep up the export quantity and prices stable so
that it doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Due to unavailability of world export, import, re-export and re-import data
of Green Chilly, World scenario is not available.
89
SPICES
90
GARLIC
Indian Rank in Garlic Production in the world- 2nd
MP’s Rank in India in production- 1st
A. Production Analysis14
Production statistics of Garlic-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 96.92 1151.16
India 247.52 1259.27
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 107.71 1140.46
India 230.59 1251.88
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 101.31 1090.30
India 262.06 1425.46
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 114.79 1243.14
India 280.95 2611.48
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 156.88 1779.91
India 321 3197.91
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 577.60788 6404.963
India 1342.12 9745.999
14 Horticulture at a glance 2017 and Data taken directly from MP government
11.88
10.59 10.76 10.8311.35
5.09 5.43 5.44
9.309.96
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Productivity (Mt/Ha)
91
Production Insights- 1- India is a major producer for garlic and MP has the largest share in India’s production.
2- Garlic production in MP is around 65.7% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 62.5% in last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 54.1% in the last 4 years while for India it
has increased by 260%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost stable in the last 2 years with MP’s
productivity being a bit higher than the Indian productivity, but national productivity
is catching up with MP.
B. Mandi Analysis15
Arrival trend of Garlic in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 681834.92 1151157 59.23%
2014 664296.42 1140456 58.25%
2015 636617.69 1090303 58.39%
2016 622476 1243135 50.07%
2017 764417.02 1779912 42.95%
Total 3369642.05 6404963.00 52.61%
Price Trend
15 http://agmarknet.gov.in/
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 1000 1000 1500 3000 1500
Modal 2000 2254 3230 5728 2500
Maximum 3100 3978 5200 8000 3500
02000400060008000
10000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
92
2017 price trend- Wholesale Monthly Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Indore Indore 10%
Mandsaur Mandsaur 35%
Neemuch Neemuch 26%
Ratlam Ratlam 12%
Shajapur Shujalpur 9%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have 52% arrival for Garlic of the total production.
2- The production and arrivals are increasing but the arrivals as a % to production are
decreasing.
3- 50% of the garlic is sold outside Mandis directly to customers, private markets,
exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- There are price fluctuations in Mandis in MP in the last 5 years but arrivals are nearly
same. Especially price had shot up in 2016.
5- The 2017 price trend is for showing the seasonality factor in prices. We can see that
the prices are high from January to May and they keep decreasing from July to
December.
6- The key mandis for Garlic in MP are Neemuch & Mandsaur mandi in Neemuch &
Mandsaur district and they constitute more than 61% of the total arrivals in MP.
7- MP has around 5 key Mandis that have garlic arrivals in the last 5 years which is a
very good number.
The key months for arrivals of garlic in MP are September, October, November,
December and January.
8171
4998
3409 3026 3160 2913 2671 2596 2440 2409 2109 2068
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Garlic- Rs./Quintal-2017
93
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 1689050.0 1588382.6 63112.7 1525270.0
2018-19 1825069.0 1716294.9 64292.4 1652002.5
2019-20 1961088.0 1844207.2 65494.3 1778712.9
2020-21 2097107.0 1972119.4 66718.5 1905400.9
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 19 Lac MT for Garlics in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Garlic16
Year Product Value (Rs. Lacs) Qty (MT) Avg Value per kg
2016-17 Garlic Fresh
or Chilled
14,256.19 23547.25 60.54
2017-18 13,266.01 31222.7 42.49
2016-17 Dehydrated
Garlic
powder
7861.06 6038.3 130.19
2017-18 6734.03 7415.17 90.81
2016-17 Dehydrated
Garlic flakes
9623.94 4433.89 217.05
2017-18 8737.57 8921.61 97.94
2016-17 Dried Garlic
2,082.18 1245.91 167.12
2017-18 3,546.22 3230.32 109.78
2016-17 Garlic oil
1987.25 106.16 1871.94
2017-18 2941.4 125.08 2351.61
Insights 1- The average price for exported Garlic with value addition is considerably more on
average than the modal price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit
for exports.
2- Garlic is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Garlic.
Garlic export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 533844.48 50914.88 1048.50%
2018-19 578200.86 56006.37 1032.38%
16 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
94
2019-20 622549.52 61607.00 1010.52%
2020-21 666890.31 67767.71 984.08%
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is
much more than all Indian garlic exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Garlic exports and can
highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and
improving fruit quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Garlic from India-17
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
MALAYSIA 5012.58 2533.83 19.1% 7,958.46 9,654.18 30.92% 26.25
INDONESIA 2517.05 3245.77 24.47% 4,612.00 6,313.00 20.22% 51.41
BANGLADESH
PR
3677.37 1923.86 14.5% 6,740.98 5,178.00 16.58% 37.15
VIETNAM SOC
REP
913.29 1124.35 8.48% 1,516.20 2,949.18 9.45% 38.12
TAIWAN 154.66 1230.12 9.27% 257.58 1,985.33 6.36% 61.96
SRI LANKA DSR 487.84 1238.74 9.34% 592.02 1,700.72 5.45% 72.84
PHILIPPINES 240.68 437.59 3.30% 396 767.03 2.46% 57.05
THAILAND 168.55 142.82 1.08% 253.05 653.11 2.09% 21.87
U ARAB EMTS 256.96 367.87 2.77% 343.23 640.12 2.05% 57.47
TUNISIA NR 68.94 0.52% NR 259 0.83% 26.62
Top 10 total 13428.98 12313.89 92.82% 22669.52 30099.67 96.40%
Total 14256.19 13266.01 100% 23547.26 31222.71 100% 11.36
Insights
1- Almost 68% of garlic in terms of value is being exported just in 3 countries in the
Indian subcontinent & South East Asia at prices not as good as EU and US, hence we
can prioritize these countries as our major Export partners for garlic.
2- Bangladesh imports 17% of fresh and chilled garlic which in turn means that we can
exclusively meet their demand as it would be transported through land.
3- Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Indonesia & UAE are high paying countries hence we
can try and increase our export contribution to these countries.
4- Garlic net exports has increased by 75% in 2017-18 from 2016-17.
17 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
95
Top 5 exporting nations of Garlic in the world- (Competitors)-
(2017 Data)-18
1- Total exports in 2017- 386221355 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 796801231 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Garlic in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 1449218415 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 2214412398 US $
Insights- 1- India is ranked second in Garlic production in the world yet it is not ranked in top 5
exporters in the world, having just 2.1% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in comparison to the top 5 exporters which
may create more demand. This value is lower than the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries Indonesia, US and Brazil and they consist of nearly
50% of the total imports. India has negligible share of this in US and Brazil and it has
a very low share in UK. If these markets are tapped, exports can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a huge
benefit for exports in India.
18 https://comtrade.un.org/data/
44.6%
22.9%
4.2%
3.8%
3.4%21.1%
Contribution to total global exports of Garlic in the world
Spain
Argentina
Italy
Chile
Egypt
Others
238206
176143 139 134
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Per Kg export value of Garlic in Rs.
26.6%
13.0%
10.1%8.4%3.7%
38.2%
Contribution to total global imports of Garlic in the world
Indonesia
Brazil
USA
Malaysia
Germany
Others
226
186
11799
79 70
0
50
100
150
200
250
Per Kg import value of Garlic seeds in Rs.
96
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Garlic in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 77.91% 289
New Zealand 10.8% 194
China, Hong Kong 6.9% 87
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 1626625 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 5569996 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 223
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Garlic in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
Argentina 45.01% 257
Slovakia 27.96% 246
Australia 19.96% 184
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 165890 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 616972 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 242
Insights- 1- USA, New Zealand and China, Hong Kong are the largest re-exporters with 93% of
the total re-exports.
2- Australia, Argentina and Slovakia are major re-importers but they have a low share in
exports.
3- We can see that the export price is Rs. 134, the import price is Rs. 99, the re-export
price is Rs. 223 and the re-import price is Rs. 242.
97
GINGER
Indian Rank in Ginger Production in the world- 1st
A- Production Analysis
Production statistics of Ginger-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT) MP prod %
of India
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 25.03 352.28 50.50%
India 145.25 697.63
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 24.89 372.47 55.59%
India 141.62 670.06
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 19.52 336.82 43.11%
India 152.65 781.31
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 20.34 325.43 28.85%
India 174.62 1128.18
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 23.15 372.64 34.22%
India 179.00 1089.00
2012-17
Total
Madhya Pradesh 112.93 1759.64 40.30%
India 793.15 4366.18
98
Insights- 1- India is a major producer for Ginger in the world.
2- Ginger production in MP is around 17% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has increased by 85% in last 5 years.
4- The production for MP has increased by 85% in the last 5 years while for India it has
increased by 28%.
5- The productivity of India and MP is almost same, MP was ahead but India has caught
up in the last 5 years with MP’s productivity.
B. Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Ginger in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 2914.93 352282 0.83%
2014 4115.28 372474 1.10%
2015 5704.26 336821 1.69%
2016 9564.85 325429.58 2.94%
2017 9672.45 372637.8 2.60%
Total 31971.77 1759644.38 1.82%
14.0814.96
17.2516.00 16.09
4.80 4.73 5.126.46 6.08
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Productivity (Mt/Ha)
99
Price Trend
2017 price trend- Wholesale prices monthly
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Districts Mandis Arrival %
Bhopal Bhopal 49.18%
Indore Indore 21.94%
Jabalpur Jabalpur 27.04%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 3000 3000 1600 1500 1200
Modal 5000 4000 2500 2000 1500
Maximum 6000 6000 3000 2500 2000
01000200030004000500060007000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
12621106
1207 11991390 1390
1923 19232058 2058 1990 1990
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Mnthly Prices Trend- Ginger- Rs./Quintal- 2017
100
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have 1.82% arrival for Ginger of total production.
2- The production has almost remained the same but the arrivals & the percentage
contribution of production coming to mandis has increased.
3- Ginger reaches the Mandis as well as most of it is sold outside Mandis directly to
customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The prices have dipped in Mandis in MP in the last 5 years as arrivals have increased.
5- The 2017 price trend of wholesale prices is shown to view the seasonality factor for
price fluctuations. As we see the prices are lower in Jan to June and more from July to
December.
6- The key mandis for Ginger in MP are Bhopal, Indore & Jabalpur mandi in Bhopal,
Indore & Jabalpur district and they constitute more than 97% of the total arrivals in
MP.
7- MP has 3 key Mandis that have Ginger arrivals in the last 5 years.
C. Exports
Forecasted Surplus in MP (in MT)
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 379423.74 351460.21 57943.17 293517.04
2018-19 386333.26 357860.49 59026.30 298834.19
2019-20 393368.60 364377.33 60129.68 304247.65
2020-21 400532.06 371012.84 61253.69 309759.16
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 12 Lac MT for Ginger in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Ginger
Year Product Value (Rs. Lacs) Qty (MT) Avg Value per kg
2016-17 Ginger- Neither
Crushed not
Ground
20879.01 29948.81 69.72
2017-18 16033.97 23475.43 68.30
2016-17 Ginger- Crushed or
Ground
7240.42 3538.66 204.61
2017-18 7257.84 3764.43 192.80
2016-17 Ginger Oil
2419.66 27.75 8719.50
2017-18 2434.18 38.27 6360.54
101
2016-17 Ginger Oleoresins
5276.32 234.31 2251.85
2017-18 5322.10 264.85 2009.48
Insights
1- The average price for exported Ginger with value addition is considerably more on average
than the modal price available in Mandis. This means that there is huge profit for exports with
value addition.
2- Ginger is in demand in various forms hence processing is necessary and MP can take
advantage of it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Major export of Ginger is in the form of Ginger- Neither Crushed not Ground, Ginger-
Neither Crushed not Ground.
4- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Ginger.
Ginger export potential
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 102731 27543 3.73
2018-19 104592 30297 3.45
2019-20 106487 33327 3.20
2020-21 108416 36660 2.96
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is much more than
all Indian Ginger exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Ginger exports and can highly
increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving produce
quality.
Top importing Nations from India for Ginger
Ginger- Neither Crushed nor Ground
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT Value
per kg
2017-
18 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
% 2016-2017 2017-2018
2017-18
%
MOROCCO 2268.32 5381.14 33.56% 1589 4419 18.82% 122
BANGLADESH
PR 5501.05 2602.59 16.23% 19890.74 12548.45 53.45% 21
U S A 1478.01 1467.58 9.15% 641.15 659.8 2.81% 222
SPAIN 3893.44 935.38 5.83% 2670.4 807.55 3.44% 116
U ARAB EMTS 568.99 836.3 5.22% 507.72 933.68 3.98% 90
102
SAUDI ARAB 1222.98 774.07 4.83% 884.11 656.4 2.80% 118
GERMANY 743.47 408.53 2.55% 181.65 86.36 0.37% 473
NEPAL 597.44 373.07 2.33% 396.34 296.9 1.26% 126
YEMEN
REPUBLC 332.71 276.41 1.72% 236.45 256.5 1.09% 108
U K 353.33 267.62 1.67% 155.93 168.92 0.72% 158
Total top 10 16959.74 13322.69 83.09% 27153.49 20833.56 88.75% 64
Total 20,879.01 16,033.97 100.00% 29,948.81 23,475.43 100.00% 68
Insights
1- Only 28% of Ginger in terms of value is being exported just in Asian countries in the
Middle East & South East Asia.
2- Bangladesh imports 53.45% of Ginger which in turn means that we can exclusively
meet their demand as it would be transported through land.
3- Germany, UK & USA are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our
export contribution to these countries.
4- Ginger- Crushed or Ground fetches a better value than fresh Ginger we should try and
increase our share in this products market.
5- Ginger net exports has decreased by 20% in terms of value in 2017-18 from 2016-17
& quantity by 20%.
6- New markets should be explored to keep up the export quantity and prices stable so
that it doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 exporting nations of Ginger in the world- (Competitors)- (2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 89649033 Kg 2- Total Export Value in 2017- 122654895 US $
41.1%
12.9%10.4%
6.4%
4.8%
24.3%
Contribution to total global exports of Ginger in the world
Peru
India
Indonesia
Brazil
Germany
Others
185
124
91 8968
58
0
50
100
150
200
Per Kg export value of Ginger in Rs.
103
Top 5 importing nations of Ginger in the world (2017 Data)-
1- Total imports in 2017- 405961176 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 524857026 US $
Insights-
1- India leads Ginger production in the world yet it is ranked 2nd in world exports having just
12% of the total world exports.
2- India has the lowest per Kg export value in the top 4 exporters which may create more
demand. This value is lower than the global average too.
3- The top 3 importing countries US, Japan and Pakistan have nearly 49% of the total
imports. India has negligible share of this in US and Germany and it has a very low share
in UK. If these markets are tapped, exports can rise significantly.
4- Also the import price in these countries is more than 2 times which can be a huge benefit
for exports in India.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of Ginger in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export Value- Rs./Kg
USA 70.60% 125
Jordan 13.96% 74
Canada 5.23% 316
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 1029738 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 1910283 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 121
Top 3 Re-importing nations of Ginger in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import Value- Rs./Kg
UK 99.89% 72
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 47159 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 52037 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 72
20.1%
16.3%
12.1%7.5%
5.4%
38.6%
Contribution to total global imports of Ginger in the world
USA
Japan
Pakistan
Germany
UnitedKingdomOthers
151
10690 86 84
52
020406080
100120140160
Per Kg import value of Ginger in Rs.
104
Insights- 1- USA and Jordan, Canada are the largest re-exporters with 89% of the total re-exports.
2- UK is the only major re-importers but it has low share in exports.
3- We can see that the export price is Rs. 89, the import price is Rs. 84, the re-export price is Rs.
121 and the re-import price is Rs. 72.
105
CORIANDER SEEDS
Indian Rank in Orange Production in the world- 1st (Anise, Badian, Fennel,
Coriander)
MP’s Rank in India in production- 3rd
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Coriander-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13
Mad
hya Pradesh 158.96 192.33
India 543.2 634.21
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 182.93 251.98
India 469.13 490.63
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 149.42 288.21
India 558.08 655.92
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 249.1 351.05
India 667.9 828.05
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 275.76 387.43
India 699 1064
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 1016.17 1471
India 2937.31 3672.81
1.211.38
1.93
1.41 1.41.17
1.051.18 1.24
1.52
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
106
Production Insights- 1- India ranks first in Coriander, Anise, Badian and Fennel production in the world.
2- MP has a very good share in the Indian production with high production of coriander
and is ranked 3rd in India in terms of Area.
3- MP also has good production of Coriander leaves but we have majorly worked on
Coriander seeds in this report as they are exported more.
4- Coriander production in MP is around 35-45% of the Indian production which is
huge.
5- The area of production in India in the last 5 years has increased by 28.66% for
coriander while for MP, it has increased by 73.48%.
6- The production for MP has increased by 101.44% in the last 5 years while for India it
has increased by 67.77%. The increase in MP as compared to India is more due to the
increase in area.
7- The productivity of India and MP has increasing in the last 5 years and MP’s
productivity is a bit higher than the Indian productivity.
B. Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Coriander in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2014 129314 251980 51.32
2015 133363 288207 46.27
2016 171574 351051 48.87
2017 223834 387428 57.77
Total 932977 1470999 63.42%
Price Trend- Coriander
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 4000 5000 5002 5001 3575
Modal 5000 6656 7600 5910 4200
Maximum 5800 8370 9500 6580 4800
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
107
2017 Price Trend- Wholesale prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Key Districts Key Mandis Arrival %
Guna Guna 34.73%
Neemuch Neemuch 11.14%
Guna Kumbhraj 10.54%
Mandsaur Shamgarh 8.66%
Neemuch Manasa 6.40%
Mandi Insights
1- Mandis in MP have a very high arrival % for Coriander as compared to other
horticulture crops.
2- The production and arrivals both are increasing in MP.
3- More than half of Coriander seeds reach the Mandis.
4- The prices are almost stable in the last 5 years.
5- The key mandis for Coriander seeds are Guna and Kumbhraj mandi in Guna
district, Neemuch and Manasa mandi in Neemuch and Shamgarh mandi in
Mandsaur.
6- Over 50 Mandis have orange arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a
considerable number.
Coriander seeds come to the mandis all across the year but the peak
arrival occurs in February, March, April and May months.
5529
4151
5298 5298
4706
42183886 3872 3751 3751
4619 4619
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Monthly Prices Trend- Coriander- Rs./Quintal- 2017
108
C. Exports
Forecasted Surplus of Coriander seeds in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 440977 408786 85376 323410
2018-19 489903 454140 86972 367169
2019-20 538829 499494 88597 410897
2020-21 587755 544849 90253 454595
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 15.5 Lac MT for Coriander seeds in
MP which can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Coriander seeds
Year Product Value (Rs. Lacs) Qty (MT) Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 Coriander seeds-
Neither
crushed/Ground
20,120.24 23071.06 87.21
2017-18 18809.92 27071.63 69.48
2016-17 Coriander seeds-
Crushed/Ground
10,163.67 8796.94 115.54
2017-18 9390.1 9591.92 97.90
2016-17 Coriander seed Oil
463.13 14.11 3282.28
2017-18 251.81 8.56 2941.71
Insights 1- The average price for exported Coriander seeds is higher than the modal price for
seeds uncrushed and not grounded and more than 1.5 times for crushed and ground
seeds in Mandis. This means that there is profit for exports.
2- Coriander seed oil can also be exported and it has a high price of about 30 times of
coriander seeds. This is a very good opportunity for exports.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Coriander seeds.
Coriander seeds export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35%
MT
Exports forecast
MT MP Surplus over Indian exports MT
2017-18 113194 36664 308.74%
2018-19 128509 40330 318.64%
2019-20 143814 44363 324.18%
2020-21 159108 48799 326.05%
109
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, the surplus is higher than all
Indian coriander seeds exports.
This shows that MP can be a significant player in coriander exports and can
highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and improving
quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Coriander seeds- Neither crushed Nor
ground from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
Malaysia 10356 8207 43.63% 11931 11639 42.99% 71
UAE 1676 1935 10.29% 2338 3044 11.24% 64
Nepal 699 1508 8.02% 886 2615 9.66% 58
Saudi Arabia 1147 1252 6.65% 1656 2311 8.54% 54
UK 1124 969 5.15% 1094 1037 3.83% 94
Oman 797 604 3.21% 860 806 2.98% 75
Singapore 506 422 2.24% 614 618 2.28% 68
USA 937 744 3.96% 596 575 2.12% 129
Pakistan 242 245 1.30% 367 568 2.10% 43
Qatar 284 318 1.69% 378 477 1.76% 67
Total top 10 11769 16205 86.15% 20719 23689 87.51% 68
Total 20210 18810 100% 23071 27072 100% 69
Insights
1- Almost half of seeds in terms of value is being exported just in Malaysia, hence
we can prioritize Malaysia as our major Export partners for oranges.
2- We can exclusively meet the demand of Nepal and Pakistan as it would be
transported through land and transportation would be cheap.
3- USA and UK are high paying countries hence we can try and increase our
export contribution to these countries which is currently low.
4- Coriander seeds net exports value dropped by 6.93% in 2017-18 but in quantity
it rose to 17.34%.
5- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it
doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
110
Top 10 importing Nations of Coriander seeds- Crushed or ground
from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
South Africa 2082 1548 16.48% 2135 1801 18.78% 86
UK 1554 1456 15.50% 1461 1568 16.34% 93
USA 1144 1449 15.43% 710 1103 11.50% 131
UAE 1390 1080 11.50% 1444 1284 13.39% 84
Saudi Arabia 599 638 6.79% 434 647 6.74% 99
Australia 597 489 5.21% 427 415 4.33% 118
Qatar 320 466 4.96% 312 533 5.56% 87
Kuwait 332 306 3.26% 241 286 2.99% 107
Malaysia 231 289 3.07% 168 307 3.20% 94
Oman 219 200 2.13% 146 153 1.60% 130
Total top 10 8468 7919 84.33% 7477 8097 84.41% 98
Total 10164 9390 100% 8797 9592 100% 98
Insights
1- Almost 60% of the crushed seeds in terms of value is being exported just in 4
countries in South Africa, UK, USA and UAE. Hence we can prioritize these
countries as our major Export partners for oranges.
2- USA, Australia and Oman are very high paying countries hence we can try and
increase our export contribution to these countries.
3- Crushed seeds of coriander exports dropped by 7.62% in terms of value but rose by
9.04% in terms of quantity in 2017-18.
Top 10 importing Nations of Coriander Oil from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
USA 61.4 42.2 16.76% 4.2 3.4 39.60% 1245
Mexico 43.9 41.2 16.35% 0.8 0.9 9.93% 4844
Australia 14.4 23.8 9.46% 0.7 0.5 5.84% 4764
Canada 4 13.6 5.38% 0.1 0.4 4.56% 3474
Colombia 9.1 7.9 3.13% 0.5 0.4 4.44% 2074
Poland 15.6 13.7 5.45% 0.3 0.4 4.44% 3613
Ireland 28.2 14.9 5.91% 0.4 0.4 4.21% 4131
111
Thailand 34.1 13.4 5.32% 0.7 0.4 3.74% 4184
Vietnam 3.9 12 4.76% 0.1 0.3 3.27% 4279
France 6.1 9.5 3.76% 0.1 0.3 2.92% 3792
Total top 10 220.8 192.1 76.28% 7.9 7.1 82.94% 2705
Total 463.1 251.8 100% 14.1 8.6 100% 2942
Insights
1- Coriander oil has a high export price so there should be focus on exporting it.
2- 40% of oil is being exported to USA, Mexico and Australia and hence we should
prioritize them. Also Mexico and Australia pay a lot for oil which can be highly
beneficial.
3- Coriander oil net exports dropped a lot in 2017-18 and which means that we need to
find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian oranges and rectify it.
4- Currently the exports by volume is less as compared to seeds.
Top 5 exporting nations of Coriander seeds in the world
(Competitors)- (2017 Data)-
1- Total exports in 2017- 142949325 Kg
2- Total Export Value in 2017- 107629619 US $
Top 5 importing nations of Oranges in the world (2017 Data)-
20.1%
15.8%
13.7%7.8%5.2%
37.3%
Contribution of total global exports of Coriander seeds in the world
India
Russia
Italy
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Others
7669
49
3224 24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Italy India GlobalAverage
Bulgaria Russia Ukraine
Per Kg export value of COriander seeds in Rs.
14.3%
11.7%
6.9%
4.9%
4.7%
57.5%
Contribution of total global imports of Coriander seeds in the world
Malaysia
India
Indonesia
Japan
Egypt
Others
108
8273
6148
36
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Per Kg import value of Coriander seeds in Rs.
112
1- Total imports in 2017- 143911346 KG
2- Total import Value in 2017- 135457915 US $
Insights-
1- India ranks 1st in Coriander production in the world and it also ranks 1st in
Coriander seeds export in the world having a major share of 20% exports.
2- India has a bit high per Kg export value than the global average in 2017-18.
3- India also ranks 2nd in imports. Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Egypt also have
a good share in imports and India can focus to export in these countries where
currently we export almost negligible to them.
4- Also Japan, Malaysia and Egypt pay a higher price for imports than our export
price which can lead to profits.
Top 3 Re-exporting nations of oranges in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-exports Re-export value- Rs./Kg
USA 65.64% 195
Jordan 14.77% 63
Canada 9.26% 258
1- Total re-exports in 2017- 522095 KG
2- Total re-export Value in 2017- 788924 US $
3- Per KG average re-export value in Rs.- 98
Top 3 Re-importing nations of oranges in the world (2017 Data)-
Country % of Total Re-imports Re-import value- Rs./Kg
Canada 49.43% 112
Russia 26.36% 204
Canada 15.47% 234
1- Total re-imports in 2017- 39374 KG
2- Total re-import Value in 2017- 93906 US $
3- Per KG average re-import value in Rs.- 154
Insights-
1- USA, Jordan and Canada are the largest re-exporters with more than 90% of
the total re-exports. The re-export price is much more than the export price.
2- Canada and Russia are the major re-importers. Russia also has a high share in
exports. The re-import value is also very high.
113
RED CHILLY
Indian Rank in Red Chilly Production in the world- 1st
MP’s Rank in India in production- 3rd
A. Production Analysis
Production statistics of Red Chilly-
Year Region Area ('000 Ha) Production ('000 MT)
2012-13 Madhya Pradesh 140.77 127.5
India 880.48 1338.31
2013-14 Madhya Pradesh 119.63 466.2
India 840.09 1864.77
2014-15 Madhya Pradesh 119.21 501.58
India 808.06 1974.15
2015-16 Madhya Pradesh 103.71 371.44
India 842.72 1759.39
2016-17 Madhya Pradesh 98.54 303.63
India 853.54 2264.13
2012-17 Total Madhya Pradesh 581.86 1770.34
India 4224.89 9200.74
0.91
3.904.21
3.583.08
1.52
2.22 2.442.09
2.65
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Year
Productivity (MT/Ha)
MP India
114
Production Insights-
1- India is a major producer for Red Chilly being the first in the world and MP has
a significant share in India’s production with many districts producing Red
Chilly.
2- Red Chilly production in MP is around 20% of the Indian production.
3- The area of production in MP has decreased by 30% in last 5 years while for
India it has decreased by 3.06%.
4- Yet, the production for MP has increased by 138.13% in the last 5 years while
for India it has increased by 69.18%.
5- The productivity of MP has significantly risen by 240.2% in 5 years while for
India it rose by 74.52%. This may be due to the favourable climatic situations
in MP for Red Chilly.
B. Mandi Analysis
Arrival trend of Red Chilly in MP-
Year Arrival in MP (MT) Production (MT) Ratio of Arrival over
Production (%)
2013 67037 127502 52.58%
2014 65509 466200 14.05%
2015 83560 501581 16.66%
2016 5507 371435 1.48%
2017 9544 303626 3.14%
Total 231158 1770344 13.06
Price Trend
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Minimum 2450 3000 3000 3577 3600
Modal 5000 5000 4500 3700 4300
Maximum 6000 7500 7200 3750 5300
010002000300040005000600070008000
Pri
ce-
Med
ian
Year
Mandi Price Trend-Median prices (Rs./Quintal)
Minimum Modal Maximum
115
2017 Price Trend- Wholesale Prices
Key Districts and Mandis in MP
Key Districts Key Mandis Mandi Rank
Khargone Sanawad 70.02%
Indore Indore 12.45%
Dhar Dhamnod 9.33%
Mandi Insights 1- Mandis in MP have no patterns for arrivals of Red Chilly.
2- The arrivals have decreased a lot in 2016 and 2017.
3- A lot of Red Chilly does not reach the Mandis as majority of it is sold outside Mandis
directly to customers, private markets, exporters, food processing units, etc.
4- The price fluctuations in Mandis are less in MP in the last 5 years.
5- The key mandis for Red Chilly in MP are Sanawad mandi in Khargone district, Indore
mandi in Indore district and Dhamnod mandi in Dhar district. They compromise
91.8% of the total arrivals in MP.
6- The price trend graph of 2017 is shown to depict the seasonality factor in price
fluctuations. We see that the prices are high in January, February and March and they
decrease in April, May and June. The prices go up again in July and August and from
September they come down.
7- Only 13-15 Mandis have Red Chilly arrivals in MP in the last 5 years which is a very
low number.
Red Chilly comes to the mandis all over the year but the key months for arrivals
in MP are December, January, February and March.
8211 8211 7931
4194 3956 3956
7465 7465
49424397
51174749
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pri
ce
Month
Wholesale Mnthly Prices Trend- Garlic- Rs./Quintal- 2017
116
C. Exports Forecasted Surplus of Red Chilly in MP
Year Production Production after
PHL Consumption Surplus
2017-18 344014 321619 91097 230522
2018-19 325782 304574 92800 211773
2019-20 310367 290162 94535 195627
2020-21 297014 277678 96302 181376
We have forecasted the surplus of MP for the next 4 years as per the method given in
methodology.
As we can see there is high surplus above 8 Lac MT for Red Chilly in MP which
can be used for processing and exporting till 2021.
Indian Exports of Red Chilly
Year Product Value (Rs. Lacs) Qty (MT) Avg Value
per kg
2016-17 Chilly Powder
45,137 31,349 144
2017-18 38,899 34,931 111
2016-17 Chilly Seeds
2,137 1,824 117
2017-18 3,584 5,724 63
Insights
1- The average price for exported Chilly powder is around 3 times on average than
the modal price available in Mandis and for the chilly seeds, it is 2 times. This
means that there is huge profit for exports. 2- Red Chilly is in demanded more in processed forms and MP can take advantage of
it by encouraging SME’s and processing units.
3- Food and logistics parks in MP should help in exports of Red Chilly.
Red Chilly export potential in MP-
Year MP Surplus- 35% MT Exports forecast MT MP Surplus over Indian
exports MT
2017-18 80682.5422 34931.08 2.30976375
2018-19 74120.7015 38424.188 1.92901152
2019-20 68469.5083 42266.6068 1.61994334
2020-21 63481.6612 46493.2675 1.3653947
If we assume only 35% of the surplus is used for exports, yet the surplus is
much more than all Indian Red Chilly exports.
117
This shows that MP can be a significant player in Red Chilly exports and
can highly increase Indian exports too by tapping the right markets and
improving fruit quality.
Top 10 importing Nations of Chilly powder from India-
Country
Values in Rs. Lacs Quantity MT
Value per
kg 2017-18
2016-
2017
2017-
2018 2017-18 %
2016-
2017
2017-
2018
2017-18
%
UAE 11507 9361 24.48% 10090 10756 21.87% 87
USA 6998 5961 15.59% 3267 3745 7.61% 159
UK 3548 2934 7.67% 1781 1913 3.89% 153
Saudi Arabia 2475 1995 5.22% 1451 1343 2.73% 149
Indonesia 1580 1975 5.17% 1293 2190 4.45% 90
South Africa 2115 1823 4.77% 1116 1358 2.76% 134
Qatar 2235 1676 4.38% 1543 1443 2.93% 116
Tunasia 1373 1333 3.49% 1063 1212 2.46% 110
Oman 1217 1232 3.22% 644 829 1.69% 149
Kuwait 1106 877 2.29% 734 653 1.33% 134
Total Top 10 34155 29166 76.28% 22983 25442 51.73% 115
Total 44366 38234 100% 52761 49181 100% 78
Insights
1- 30% of Chilly powder in terms of value is being exported just in 2 countries in
the UAE and USA, hence we can prioritize these countries as our major Export
partners for Red Chilly. Also USA pay a very high price which is beneficial for
India.
2- USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Oman and South Africa are high paying countries
hence we can try and increase our export contribution to these countries.
3- Red Chilly net exports has dropped by 13.82% in 2017-18 from 2016-17 which
means we need to find the cause of this slump in demand for Indian Chilly
powder and rectify it.
4- New markets should be explored to keep demand and prices stable so that it
doesn’t shock local market with excess supply.
Top 5 countries who import Chilly seeds from India- Iran, Korea,
USA, Vietnam and Mexico
Due to unavailability of world export data, we could not do the world
analysis
118
Crop Infrastructure Requirements
The key crops identified by us for exports from MP need the following infrastructural
changes & upgrades.
Fruits
119
Vegetables
120
Potential products which are being exported-19
Potential products which are being exported export from various crops
Guava
Guava Fresh/Dry
Garlic
Garlic Fresh/Chilled
Onion
Onion Fresh/Chilled
Guava
Prepared/Preserved
Dehydrated Garlic
Powder Onion Preserved
Orange
Orange Fresh/Dry Dehydrated Garlic Flakes Onion Dried
Orange
Prepared/Preserved Dried Garlic Onion Seeds
Orange Squash Garlic Oleoresin
Potato
Potato Fresh/Chilled
Orange Pulp Garlic Oil Potato Frozen
Orange oil
Chilly Red
Chilly Red Potato Prepared
Preserved
Banana Banana Fresh/Dry Chilly Seeds Potato Dried
Banana Plantains Chilly Powder Potato Flour
Mango
Mango Fresh/Dry
Ginger
Ginger Fresh/Dry Potato Flakes
Mango sliced Ginger
Bleached/Unbleached Potato Starch
Mango Pulp Ginger Powder
Tomato
Tomato Fresh/Chilled
Mango Flour Ginger
Crushed/Uncrushed Tomato Seeds
Mango Kernel Ginger Oil Tomato Chutney/Paste
Mango Oil Ginger Grass Oil
Mango Pickle Ginger Oleoresins Tomato
Prepared/Preserved
Mango Chutney
Coriander
seed
Coriander Powder Tomato Diced
Mango Jam and Jellies Coriander Seeds
Crushed/Uncrushed Tomato Juice
Mango Squash Coriander Seeds Oil Tomato Ketchup
Mango Juice
Green
Chilly
Green Chilly
Green
Peas
Peas Dried
Pomegranate Pomegranate fresh Chilly seeds Peas Shelled
Pomegranate seeds Peas Frozen
19 http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/Default.asp
121
Organic Agriculture
The National Program on Organic Production (NPOP) denotes organic agriculture as “a
system of farm design and management to create an eco system, which can achieve
sustainable productivity without the use of artificial external inputs such as chemical
fertilizers and pesticides”.
Codex Alimentarius Commission argues that the “organic agriculture is holistic production
management system, which promotes and enhances agro – eco system health, including
biodiversity, biological cycle and soil biological activities”.
Organic products are now very much in demand in the world so if MP increases its
focus on organic production, we can improve exports by a large share.
Indian Scenario for organic agriculture-20
India has 50.85% of total organic farm land of whole of Asia but it is still only 0.8% of the
total agricultural land in
Indian Yearly portion of organic farm land out of the total land under cultivation
20 https://statistics.fibl.org/
122
One of the significant developments in the Indian organic sector during the past year has been
the recognition of Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) by the government at the policy
and implementation levels. Recently, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) launched an “Indian Organic Integrity Database” to help consumers verify the
authenticity of organic food. It has also introduced a common logo for organic foods with the
tagline “Jaivik Bharat.” The database and the associated portal verify the authenticity of the
organic produce – certified by either third-party systems or Participatory Guarantee Systems
(PGS). This development brings more small and marginal farmers within the ambit of
certified organic markets. In addition to the 1.5 million organic hectares certified through the
third-party systems, there are over 200’000 hectares certified under PGS.
The scope for certification of organic farm produce is far beyond this. It is estimated that at
least 18 million hectares in the North-eastern region of India are traditionally organic, and so
are many other farms managed by tribal populations and those in totally rain-fed areas. For
instance, Sikkim, in the Northeast of India, is heavily mountainous and there is little
farmland. Because most of these areas are very poor, farmers have little access to chemical
inputs. It has therefore been easy for Sikkim to become fully organic.
The challenge is to recognize these products, which do not have any certification, as organic
in the markets. PGS is one step in this direction.
The other major step is the declaration of entire states and districts as organic by prohibiting
the use of chemicals through effective regulations. Sikkim, a state in Northeast India, with a
cultivated area of 56’000 hectares, has been declared as organic. Arunachal Pradesh and
Mizoram, two other states of Northeast India, are on the path to follow this suit. Similarly,
Kasargode, a district of Kerala state in Southern India, has drafted a roadmap leading to
become an organic district.
There is a rising demand for organic produce in the domestic and international markets. The
export of organic products is estimated to triple by 2020, and the domestic market is also
showing a similar trend. Presently, about one fifth of the total third-party certified organic
produce is exported, while the rest is sold mainly in large cities in India. The PGS-certified
products are sold almost entirely within the country. India is among the key players in the
organic sector globally, with the largest number of certified organic producers in the world
and an ever-growing market for organic produce.
The Government of India has implemented the National Programme for Organic Production
(NPOP). The national programme involves the accreditation programme for Certification
Bodies, standards for organic production, promotion of organic farming etc. The NPOP
standards for production and accreditation system have been recognized by European
Commission and Switzerland for unprocessed plant products as equivalent to their country
standards. Similarly, USDA has recognized NPOP conformity assessment procedures of
accreditation as equivalent to that of US. With these recognitions, Indian organic products
duly certified by the accredited certification bodies of India are accepted by the importing
countries.
123
Indian Statistics in organic production-21
Oilseeds Organic production
Oilseed is the only category where India is in top 10 producers of organic
commodities being exported.
Of the oilseeds, Soyabean oilseeds constitutes 50% of the total exports.
As MP is the leading producer of soyabean in MP, focus on organic farming for
soyabean can highly increase its share in exports.
Organic Exports
The total volume of export during 2015-16 was 263687 MT.
The organic food export realization was around 298 million USD.
Organic products are exported to European Union, US, Canada, Switzerland,
Korea, Australia, New Zealand, South East Asian countries, Middle East, South
Africa etc.
Oil seeds (50%) lead among the products exported followed by processed food
products (25%), Cereals & Millets (17%), Tea (2%), Pulses (2%), Spices (1%),
Dry fruits (1%), and others.
MP’s scenario for organic agriculture-
Among all the states, Madhya Pradesh has the largest area under organic
certification followed by Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.
MP has 10% of organic farming in terms of land under cultivation of Indian
organic farms.
MP Government has developed a brand called ‘MP Organic’ to boost demand
for organic products based out of MP.
21 https://statistics.fibl.org/
124
World scenario of organic agriculture22
22 https://statistics.fibl.org/
125
126
MP Mandi Analysis23
MP has a total of 257 regulated Mandis which have arrivals of various commodities
covered under the APMC act of crops.
Our focus is majorly on Horticulture crops being produced in MP and how they are
being traded through various mandis in MP. Horticulture crops are not part of the
APMC act.
We have kept focus on mandis as they can be established to be a primary source
of procurement for horticulture crops being exported from India. This need is
from both the sides of supply & demand.
A lot of infrastructural requirement is needed for horticulture crops to be exported
through mandis as they are perishable products.
We have analysed the current scenario of mandis and areas where we will have to
work upon to make mandis a primary source of exports procurement.
Introduction-
1. There are 257 regulated mandis in MP which are divided under 7 divisions and 51
districts.
2. Out of these 257 mandis in MP, only 132 mandis have horticulture arrivals in 2017-
18.
3. The total arrival in these 132 mandis in 2017-18 for fruits, veg and spices was
3316630.79 tonnes.
23 http://mpmandiboard.gov.in/ http://agmarknet.gov.in/
37, 28%
19, 15%
19, 14%
24, 18%
3, 2%
25, 19%
5, 4%
Total Number of Mandis in MP under each zone
Ujjain
Indore
Bhopal
Gwalior
Sagar
127
4. Mandis are classified into 4 grade types numbered 1 to 4-
Analysis of arrivals of Horticulture arrivals in MP mandis
The following graph shows the arrivals of Major crops in mandis in MP from 201-14
to 2017-18.
The total arrival in five years is 132853377 Mt.
We can see that wheat has almost 50% arrivals followed by Soyaben at 12% and
Paddy at 11%. These 3 are the major crops in MP as per arrivals.
Horticulture is at 10% and it includes all fruits, vegetables and spices arrivals.
As compared to agriculture crops, horticulture crop’s arrivals are very less.
Commodities such as wheat, paddy & soyabean individually outperform horticulture
arrivals.
32, 24%
27, 20%
22, 17%
51, 39%
No. of Mandis Grade Wise
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
45%
12%11%
10%
6%
4%12%
Total MP Mandi Arrivals- 2013-2017
Wheat
Soyabean
Paddy
Horti- F,V,M
Chickpea
Corn
others
128
The following graph shows the share of each division to the total arrivals from 2013-
14 to 2017-18.
Ujjain, Indore and Bhopal zones constitute 80% of the total arrivals. There are 75 out
of 132 mandis in these regions. (56.82%)
Gwalior, Sagar, Jabalpur and Reva zones have 43.18% (57) of the 132 mandis but
they constitute only 20% of the arrivals which is less than the arrivals of Indore alone.
Reva has 5 mandis but constitutes only 0.37% of the arrivals while Sagar has only 3
mandis yet has 7% of the arrivals. Also Jabalpur has 25 mandis yet has only 4% of the
arrivals.
Indore & Ujjain Divisions make up for 70% arrivals hence key infrastructure
should be developed here in first phase.
Arrival trend in Mandis24
24 http://agmarknet.gov.in/
10%
34%
36%
9%
7%4% 0.37%
Division wise arrivals in MP- 2013 to 2017
Bhopal
Indore
Ujjain
Gwalior
Sagar
Jabalpur
Rewa
2033 2091
2492
2920
3317
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Tho
usa
nd
Mt
Horticulture Arrivals
129
Horticulture arrivals have increased by 65% from 2013-14 to 2017
Horticultural arrivals has increased over a period of 5 years but they are still a
significantly small portion of production.
This plot shows the fluctuations in arrivals due to seasonality in mandis.
This is also a key reason causing price fluctuations.
Technological intervention can increase arrivals and stabilize them.
Top 5 mandis in MP for Horticulture crops25-
25 http://agmarknet.gov.in/
Arpil,17
May,17
June,17
July,17
Aug,17
Sept,17
Oct,17
Nov,17
Dec,17
Jan,18
Feb,18
March, 18
Series1 20.57%13.04% 4.99% 5.06% 3.48% 3.46% 6.12% 10.40%12.17% 7.98% 5.25% 7.47%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
%
Month
Monthly Horticulture arrivals(2017-18)
546.8
311.29 294.17251.03
185.47
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Indore Burhanpur Mandsaur Bhopal Neemuch
Horti-Arrival(2017-18) (‘000 MT)
130
These top 5 Mandis constitute a major share in arrivals of about 47.91% of the total
arrivals out of the 132 horticulture mandis.
The major mandi for horticulture in MP is Indore with 16.49% arrivals.
All these 5 mandis are connected to E-Nam and have the required infrastructure.
These major horticulture mandis may not be the major mandis for agriculture crops.
There are 18 mandis having arrivals consisting just 1% to 4% of the total arrivals.
109 mandis have arrivals of less than 1% out of 132 mandis.
E-National Agriculture Market
Electronic National Agriculture Market (E-NAM) is envisioned as a unified national
electronic market bringing interconnectivity to markers across the country. The
diffusion of E-NAM is through Organizations and intended through change in policy.
The diffusion will be faster if the desired policy changes are made in the organization
followed by change management in organizations. Three organizational characteristics
will affect the rate of diffusion of technology in markets, desire for change
(motivation and ability), innovation-system fit (compatibility) and assessment of
implications (observability). E-NAM for agriculture marketing can be regarded as
technology which will bring a social change in markets. The social change in
relationships and networks that work between buyer and seller as they exist in
traditional markets will change as the technology enabled E-NAM is adopted in
agricultural markets. Successful adoption /diffusion will depend on easing the
adoption barriers that can be categorized as technological and organizational.
131
E-Nam Mandis- Development phases
These changes are very important for strong backward linkages with farmers.
The major advantage of E-Nam is better infrastructure and better market connectivity.
This will increase quality of crops, increase storage and create more demand without
any geography barrier.
Current E-Nam scenario in MP
We see that majority of the mandis are not connected to E-nam due to lack of
infrastructure which needs to be improved in MP.
69%
23%
8%
MP Mandis E-Nam
Non E-namMandis
E-nam MandiPhase 1
E-nam MandiPhase 2(Proposed)
132
Phase 1 mandis are functional with upgrades being provided as per E-Nam
norms.
Phase 2 Mandis are proposed by Mandi Board MP Government to the central
government.
Digital Transactions in MP for all crops for E-Nam mandis-26
1. MP to a large extent has shifted to digital transaction in mandis from traditional
methods which makes it more convenient for non-local buyers to participate in
the market.
2. MP has outperformed India in digital transactions, which is a positive sign for
the mandis.
Post-harvest Technologies:
Post-harvest management practices are not being practiced much in MP or India because farmers do
not see much of a value addition to their process due to these practices. Also, PHM is expensive and
practiced majorly by big traders and very large land holders.
Precooling Good temperature management is the most effective way to reduce post-harvest losses and
preserve the quality of fruits and vegetables. Products harvested from hot fields often carry field heat
and have high rates of respiration. Rapid removal of field heat by precooling is so effective in quality
preservation that this procedure is widely used for highly perishable fruits and vegetables. Currently
used precooling methods include room cooling, forced-air cooling, water cooling, vacuum cooling and
package icing
Room cooling is a relatively simple method, which needs only a refrigerated room with adequate
2626 Mandi Board Madhya Pradesh
3%
34%
63%
Madhya PradeshDigital Transaction Data Reported (From 01/01/2013 to 31/12/2017)
Cheque Amount
Cash Amount
DigitalTransaction
18%
30%52%
IndiaDigital Transaction Data
Reported (From 01/01/2013 to
31/12/2017)
Cheque Amount
Cash Amount
DigitalTransaction
133
cooling capacity. The produce is packed in containers, which are loosely stacked in the cooling room,
leaving enough space between containers for each one to be exposed to circulating cold air. The rate of
cooling is rather slow compared to other methods of cooling, because the heat inside each container
needs to be transferred to the surface of the container by means of conduction before being carried away
by the refrigerated air. It may take hours or even days to cool a product, depending on what kind of
product it is, the size and nature of the container, and the temperature and velocity of the circulating air.
Forced-air cooling is a more rapid way of using air to cool produce. Cold air is forced to flow through
the inside of each container, so that it carries away heat directly from the surface of the produce rather
than from the surface of the container. The airflow is produced by creating a pressure difference between
the two perforated sides of each container. The containers are stacked inside a covered tunnel with an
exhaust fan at one end. Highly perishable and high-value products such as grapes, strawberries and
raspberries may be cooled in less than an hour using this method.
Hydro cooling is a rapid and less expensive method. Produce is exposed to cold water by means of
showering or dipping. The required cooling time is often a matter of minutes. However, not all kinds of
products tolerate hydro cooling. Hydro cooled products inevitably have a wet surface, which may
encourage decay in some kinds of produce.
Vacuum cooling is the most efficient way to cool leafy vegetables, particularly headed ones such as
head lettuce, cabbage and Chinese cabbage. The produce is placed inside a vacuum tube in which air
pressure is reduced. When the pressure is lowered to 4.6 mm Hg, water “boils” off at o 0°C from all
over the leaf surface. The boiling effect draws heat for vaporization, and hence cools the produce. The
cooling time is usually in the order of 20 to 30 minutes. Unfortunately, the equipment needed for
vacuum cooling is very expensive, and may not be a good choice for small-scale farming systems.
Ice bank cooler is a new development in refrigeration with positive ventilation. In this system ice cool
air is passed through the boxes containing horticultural produce. This facilitates quicker cooling and
large amount of heat is removed in a relatively shorter period. The store maintains a temperature of 0.5
- 0.8oC and relative humidity of 98 percent.
Package icing or top icing is the simplest way of cooling. Adding crushed ice, flake-ice or slurry of ice
in containers can cool the produce. However, this method is not suitable for produce, which is very
sensitive to ice-cold temperatures. Cooling by ice also inevitably wets both the produce and container,
and generates water, which needs to be drained.
Sanitation
Sanitation is of great concern to produce handlers, not only to protect produce against post harvest
diseases, but also to protect consumers from food borne illnesses. E.coli 157:H7, Salmonella,
Chryptosporidium, Hepatitis and Cyclospera are among the disease causing organisms that have been
transferred via fresh fruits and vegetables. Use of a disinfectant in wash water can help to prevent both
post harvest diseases and food borne illnesses.
Chlorine in the form of a sodium hypochlorite solution or as a dry powdered calcium hypochlorite can
be used in hydro-cooling or wash water as a disinfectant. For the majority of vegetables, chlorine in
134
wash water should be maintained in the range of 75-150 pm (parts per million). The antimicrobial form,
hypochlorous acid, is mostly available in water with a neutral pH (6.5 to 7.5). Organic growers must
use chlorine with caution, as it is classified as a restricted material.
Ozonation is another technology that can be used to sanitize produce. A naturally occurring molecule,
ozone is a powerful disinfectant. Fruit and vegetable growers have begun using it in dump tanks as well,
where it can be thousands of times more effective than chlorine. Ozone not only kills whatever food
borne pathogens might be present, it also destroys microbes responsible for spoilage. A basic system
consists of an ozone generator, a monitor to gauge and adjust the levels of ozone being produced and a
device to dissolve the ozone gas into the water.
Hydrogen peroxide can also be used as a disinfectant. Concentrations of 0.5% or less are effective for
inhibiting development of post harvest decay caused by a number of fungi. Hydrogen peroxide has a
low toxicity rating and is generally recognized as having little potential for environmental damage.
Presizing and Storage
For many commodities fruits below a certain size are eliminated manually or mechanically by presizing
belt. Undersized fruits are diverted for processing. The sorting process eliminates cull, overripe,
misshapen and otherwise defective fruit and separates produce by colour, maturity and ripeness classes
.
Grading
Essentially all fruits and vegetables sold in modern markets are graded and sized into two or more
grades according to trade standards. Sophisticated marketing systems require precise grading standards
for each kind of product. More primitive markets may not use written grade standards, but the products
are sorted and sized to some extent.
Typical grading facilities in large packinghouses include dumpers and conveyors. Produce is graded by
human eyes and hands while moving along conveyor belts or rollers. “Electric eyes” are sometimes
used to sort produce by colour. In small scale packing operations, one or a few grading tables may be
enough. Dumping, conveying and grasping can cause mechanical injury to some products. Equipment
should have a smooth, soft surface and dumping and grading operations should be gentle to minimize
injuries.
Many products are sized according to their weight. Automated weight sizers of various capacities are
used in packinghouses. Round or nearly round fruits are often sized according to their diameter, using
automated chain or roller sizers or hand carried ring sizers. An inefficient sizing operation can also
cause significant injuries.
135
Waxing
Food grade waxes are commonly applied to replace some of the natural waxes removed in the washing
and cleaning operations to reduce water loss and to improve appearance. It also provides protection
against decay organisms. Waxing may be done after grading and fungicides may be added to the wax.
Application of wax and post harvest fungicides must be indicated on each container where the
refrigerated storage facilities are not available Protective skin coating with wax is one of the methods
for increasing the storage life of fresh fruits.
Packaging
Packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables has a great significance in reducing the wastage. Packaging
provides protection from physical damage during storage, transportation and marketing. There are
variety of packages, packaging materials and inserts available.
There are two types of packaging. The first is when produce is packed in containers for transportation
and wholesale. The second is when produce is packed into small retail units. Ideal containers for packing
fruits and vegetables should have the following attributes. They are easy to handle, they provide good
protection from mechanical damage, they have adequate ventilation and they are convenient for
merchandising. They should also be inexpensive and easily degradable or recyclable. Many kinds of
containers have been used but the “ideal” is yet to be found. Users often put economic considerations
first is selecting containers. Fancy containers such as fiberboard boxes or wooden or plastic crates, are
often used for high-value products. Inexpensive containers such as bamboo baskets or nylon net sacs
are used for low-priced produce. Methods of packaging can affect the stability of products in the
container during shipping, and influence how much the container protects their quality. In fiberboard
boxes, for example, delicate and high-priced products are often packed in trays, while other products
are simply put in the box in groups.
Prepackaging or consumer packaging generally provides additional protection for the products. It is
also convenient for retailers as well as customers, and therefore adds value to produce. However, over-
use of non-biodegradable plastic trays and wrapping materials, as often seen in modern supermarkets,
which creates an extra burden of waste disposal and damages the environment.
Factors Affecting Storage Life:
Relative Humidity
Transpiration rates (water loss from produce) are determine by the moisture content of the air, which is
usually expressed as relative humidity. At high relative humidity, produce maintains salable weight,
appearance, nutritional quality and flavour, while wilting, softening and juiciness are reduced. Leafy
vegetables with high surface-to-volume ratios; injured produce and immature fruits and vegetables have
higher transpiration rates. High temperatures, low relative humidity and high air velocity increase
transpiration rates.
136
Relative humidity needs to be monitored and controlled in storage. Control can be achieved by a variety
of methods:
1. Operating a humidifier in the storage area.
2. Regulating air movement and ventilation in relation to storage room load.
3. Maintaining refrigeration coil temperature within the storage room.
4. Using moisture barriers in the insulation of the storage room or transport vehicle.
5. Wetting the storage room floor.
6. Using crushed ice to pack produce for shipment.
7. Sprinkling leafy vegetables, cool-season root vegetables and immature fruits and vegetables with
water.
Temperature
Respiration and metabolic rates are directly related to room temperatures within a given range. The
higher the rate of respiration, the faster the produce deteriorates. Lower temperatures reduce respiration
rates and the ripening and senescence processes, which prolong the storage life of fruits and vegetables.
Low temperatures also slow the growth of pathogenic fungi, which cause spoilage of fruits and
vegetables in storage.
Producers should give special care and attention to proper storage conditions for produce with high to
extremely high respiration rates, as these crops will deteriorate much more quickly.
It is impossible to make a single recommendation for cool storage of all fruits and vegetables. Climate
of the area where the crop originated, the plant part, the season of harvest and crop maturity at harvest
are important factors in determining the optimum temperature. A general rule for vegetables is that
cool-season crops should be stored at cooler temperatures (0 to 1.7oC) and warm-season crops should
be stored at warmer temperatures (7 to 13oC).
Freezing injury
Temperatures that are too low can be just as damaging as those too high. Freezing will occur in all
commodities below 0oC. Whether injury occurs depends on the commodity. Some can be repeatedly
frozen and thawed without damage, while others are ruined by one freezing.
Injury from freezing temperatures can appear in plant tissues as loss of rigidity, softening and water
soaking. Injury can be reduced if the produce is allowed to warm up slowly to optimum storage
temperatures and if it is not handled during the thawing period. Injured produce should be marketed
immediately, as freezing shortens its storage life.
Chilling injury
Fruits and vegetables that require warmer storage temperatures (4.5 to 13oC) can be damaged if they
are subjected to near-freezing temperatures (0oC). Cooler temperatures interfere with normal metabolic
137
processes. Injury symptoms are varied and often do not develop until the produce has been returned to
warmer temperatures for several days. Besides physical damage, chilled produce is often more
susceptible to disease infection.
Ethylene
Ethylene, a natural hormone produced by some fruits as they ripen, promotes additional ripening of
produce exposed to it. The old age saying that one bad apple spoils the whole bushel is true. The
damaged or diseased fruits produce high levels of ethylene and stimulate the other apples to ripen too
quickly. As the fruits ripen, they become more susceptible to disease. Ethylene “producers” should not
be stored with fruits, vegetables, or flowers that are sensitive to it. The result could be loss of quality,
reduced shelf life and specific symptoms of injury. Ethylene producers include apples, apricots,
avocados, ripening bananas, honeydew melons, papayas, peaches, pears, plums and tomatoes.
Storage Facilities:
Crops that require different storage conditions will need three different
storage facilities.
• Cold Storage (temperatures 0 to 2.2oC)
• Cool Storage (temperatures 4.5 to 13oF)
• Warmer storage (temperatures 13 to 15.6oF)
A recording thermometer can be helpful in determining whether storage facilities are maintaining ideal
conditions and are not fluctuating. A maximum/minimum thermometer could be substituted. Relative
humidity also should be monitored with a hygrometer.
Controlling and monitoring temperature and relative humidity will enable a grower to maintain
optimum storage conditions for maximum storage life of the crop and to minimize crop damage from
chilling, freezing or high temperature injuries and water loss from the crop.
Air-Cooled Common Storage
This is widely used for storing horticultural products, particularly those that have good keeping quality
even without a precise low temperature. However, its use is generally limited to cool seasons in
temperate and sub-tropical regions, or high altitude areas where there are low ambient temperatures at
night. An ideal storage room is adequately insulated and has a good ventilation control system, which
draws cool air inside during night and keeps warm air out during the day.
Refrigerated Storage
Refrigerated storage is a well-established technology widely used for storing horticultural crops all over
the world. Its application is limited only by cost and benefit considerations. Essentially, all crops can
138
benefit by being stored at a suitable low temperature, which extends the storage life and preserves
quality.
Many horticultural crops have storage life spans ranging from less than one month to several months
when refrigerated. Therefore, refrigerated storage can be used continuously only if different crops with
different harvesting seasons can share the facility. There are other important reasons why this method
is not used in many tropical and sub-tropical countries, where refrigeration is needed most. The initial
investment cost is too high and its energy consumption too large for many countries.
Hydro baric Storage
In this system the horticultural produce is kept in a vacuum-tight and refrigerated container and the air
is evacuated by vacuum pump to achieve desired low pressure. The low pressure retards ripening by
decreasing respiration. However this is more expensive method.
Controlled Atmosphere Storage (CA)
The fresh horticultural produce consumes oxygen for respiration and releases carbon dioxide and
ethylene. The ethylene further enhances ripening. Reducing oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide can
increase the shelf life. In CA storage the levels of CO2, O2 and N2 in the storage room are monitored.
CA storage combined with refrigeration reduces respiration and delays yellowing and quality changes.
However the tolerance of individual varieties of horticultural crops needs to be considered.
Transportation
Inland transportation of horticultural crops is usually by rail or by truck. Overseas transportation is by
sea or by air. A limited amount of high-valued produce is sometimes transported overland by air. The
basic requirements for conditions during transportation are proper control of temperature and humidity
and adequate ventilation. In addition, the produce should be immobilized by proper packaging and
stacking, to avoid excessive movement or vibration. Vibration and impact during transportation may
cause severe bruising or other types of mechanical injury.
Refrigerated containers and trailers are more often used for long distance shipping, whether by sea, rail
or truck. Shipping by refrigerated trucks is not only convenient, but also effective in preserving the
quality of product. However, both the initial investment and the operating costs are very high. Another
possibility is insulated or properly ventilated trailer trucks. Precooled products can be transported
through well-insulated non-refrigerated trucks for up to several hours without any significant rise in
product temperature. There are considerable cost savings without any sacrifice of quality if trucks are
only insulated, rather than refrigerated, for short-distance shipping. If the product is not precooled or if
the shipping distance is long, a ventilated truck is a better choice than an insulated truck without
ventilation and without refrigeration. Ventilation alone does not usually provide a uniform cool
temperature, but it may help dissipate excessive field heat and respiration heat, and thus avoid high
temperature injury.
139
Recommendations
1. Initially processing units for export orientation should be established for key products
like onion, garlic and guava on a pilot basis and then all crops should be promoted.
2. To boost horticulture export from MP, the first Centre for Perishable Cargo (CPC)
at Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Airport, Indore Madhya Pradesh will act as a positive step
in this direction. CPC is proposed to have five cold rooms with each one having
capacity of 10 MT, including two units maintaining 0-15 degree Celsius temperature
for vegetables, fruits, flours, meat and dairy products.
3. Products like Oils, essential oils, juices, pulp, seeds which are high value products
from horticulture can be prioritized to be exported from Indore CPC. These products
sell in the international markets at a very high price.
4. The countries which either pay a very high value or import in large quantities
should be targeted for exports for each crop.
5. Since the horticulture producers are heavily dependent on the domestic market, many
times overproduction lead to low price and that ultimately results in a loss to the
farmers, hence storage facilities established by state government should be made
available to farmers on pay per use basis.
6. To avoid overproduction of selected varieties in a particular district or region,
development of a mixed cropping pattern can be implemented along with the
linkage of production with processing and organized marketing in order to eliminate
flooding of the local market and falling prices during peak seasons. Horticulture
experts may advise farmers on this aspect to avoid such situation.
7. A major obstacle is the low mandi arrivals of horticulture crops. If mandis are to be
made a platform for procurement for exports, the arrivals should be increased in them.
For this, steps need to be taken.
8. There is an all-round realization at every level that quality production of
International standard is the watchword for survival now. Consequently, the
processors, small or big, have to take steps to improve quality about the selection of
raw materials, use of fertilizers, storage conditions, etc. Side by side steps would also
be required to upgrade hygienic and sanitary conditions of the workers, plant and
machinery so as to ensure quality of the finished product. There should be greater
emphasis to invest in research and development and product innovation so as to
remain competitive in world market
9. Presently most of the cold storage are setup by private entities and add layers of
mediators between these facilities & producers, which in turn reduces farmer’s share
in the profits. FPOs should be promoted to deal directly with such establishments &
they should also be promoted & preferred when a project for PHM is being
considered under MIDH.
10. The established cold storages can’t give an effective protection to horticulture
produce. Therefore, government should give financial incentives to establish multi-
chamber/ multi- product cold storage and for the existing cold storage, adequate
finance should be made available at a concessional rate of interest so that they can be
upgraded for multi-product storage.
140
11. To increase value addition, small sized processing units should be installed and
promoted. This will save post-harvest losses and increase profitability of farmers too.
Processing of fruits and canning of vegetables can multiply their value 50 to 500
times and open up prospects for huge international market. At present only a fraction
of total fruits and vegetables produced in the country are being processed.
12. Government should consider giving financial assistance to purchase refrigerated
vehicles or procure at on a concessional rate. This will ensure quality of the
exportable produce. The State Government is already preparing a District Horticulture
action plan for boosting production, that includes measures for PHM but none for
export activity.
13. A price analysis of value added products of our focus crops that are being exported
would clearly point to the products that are to be focused upon for exports. Processing
units could be established for them.
14. For meeting Sanitary & Phytosanitary requirements, labs are required to be
commissioned by the state government in accordance with the article IV of
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to meet the legal obligations of the
member countries.
15. Approximately 70 FPOs are proposed in the DHPs of all districts of MP, if these
FPOs are strengthened, they can increase farmer’s income by exporting their produce
without intermediates and have a bigger share in profits.
16. These FPOs should be the focal point of government intervention with targeted
solution packages for FPOs which have adequate number of partner farmers. A policy
needs to be developed keeping in mind the whole supply chain, from farm to market.
Interventions should be planned & provided wherever there is a need.
17. Since states technical capability to prevent post-harvest losses of horticulture produce
is limited, therefore, there should be strong network between farmers and
researchers of the horticultural advanced countries so that MP farmers can also
take advantage of their technical advancement. For this purpose, a Horticulture
Information Centre (HIC) should be established in every district where horticulture
production is substantially high. Teachers and scientists from nearby agriculture
universities, should frequently visit this centres to inform and interact with the
farmers, so that they become aware of cost effective method to prevent post-harvest
losses. In addition, as a short term measure – because there is a huge knowledge gap
between farmers and researchers - an awareness campaign should be taken up by the
respective state governments in collusion of national horticulture board, so that
farmers of the remote rural areas may become aware of the post-harvest loss
prevention technologies.
18. The above mentioned HICs should also provide information about the domestic
markets as well as opportunities in the export market. They should also provide
information about the type and quality of the produce in demand in the international
market. To have access the international market on a large scale and to explore full
potential of world market, new initiative in packaging and marketing are required. In
addition, to foray into the international market, farmers will have to discard use of
prohibited pesticides and for this purpose, information about the standards prevailing
in the western countries & our major trade partners should be available to farmers.
141
19. In addition, it is suggested that APEDA which has its offices/representatives in many
countries may also look after export promotion of fresh fruits, spices, vegetables and
processed products.
20. Since infrastructure is in a very bad shape in both states and it can’t be improved in a
short span of time, on the line of export processing zone, horticulture processing
zones could be established.
21. But last and most important precondition of growth of industry in MP, is law and
order situation. In absence of congenial business environment, no subsidies and
incentives can work. Therefore, law and order situation should be improved first.
142
EXPORT STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR EACH
CROP27
27 http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/list-standards/jp/
http://www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/fresh/ffv-standardse.html
143
FRUITS
STANDARD FOR GUAVAS – WTO
1. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE - This Standard applies to commercial varieties of guavas
grown from Psidium guajava L., of the Myrtaceae family, to be supplied fresh to the
consumer, after preparation and packaging. Guavas for industrial processing are excluded.
2. PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the
guavas must be:
- whole;
- sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded;
- clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
- practically free of pests affecting the general appearance of the produce;
- practically free of damage caused by pests;
- free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold storage;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- firm;
- practically free of bruising.
The guavas must have reached an appropriate degree of development and ripeness in accordance with criteria proper to the variety and to the area in which they are grown.
The development and condition of the guavas must be such as to enable them:
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
CLASSIFICATION
Guavas are classified in three classes defined below:
1. “Extra” Class
Guavas in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety
and/or commercial type. They must be free of defects, with the exception of very slight
superficial defects, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the
quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package.
2. Class I
Guavas in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type. The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do
not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and
presentation in the package:
144
slight defects of colour or shape;
slight defects on the skin due to rubbing and other superficial defects such as sunburns,
blemishes and scabs not exceeding 5% of the total surface area. The defects must not, in any
case, affect the pulp of the fruit.
3. Class II
This class includes guavas which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy the minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects, however, may be allowed, provided the guavas retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
- defects in shape and colour;
- defects on the skin due to rubbing and other defects such as sunburns, blemishes and scabs not exceeding 10% of the total surface area.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the pulp of the fruit.
3- PROVISIONS CONCERNING SIZING
Size is determined by the weight or maximum diameter of the equatorial section of the fruit,
in accordance with the following table:
Size Code Weight (g) Diameter (mm)
1 > 450 > 100
2 351 - 450 96 - 100
3 251 - 350 86 - 95
4 201 - 250 76 - 85
5 151 - 200 66 - 75
6 101 - 150 54 - 65
7 61 - 100 43 - 53
8 35 - 60 30 - 42
9 < 35 < 30
4- PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not
satisfying the requirements of the class indicated.
QUALITY TOLERANCES
1- “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of guavas not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
145
2- Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of guavas not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
3- Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of guavas satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor the
minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting or any other deterioration
rendering it unfit for consumption.
SIZE TOLERANCES
For all classes, 10% by number or weight of guavas corresponding to the size immediately
above or below that indicated on the package.
5- PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only guavas of the same origin, variety
and/or commercial type, quality and size. The visible part of the contents of the package must be
representative of the entire contents.
PACKAGING
Guavas must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used inside
the package must be new28, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or internal
damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Guavas shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International Code
of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure
suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the guavas. Packages must be free of all foreign matter
and smell.
6- MARKING OR LABELLING
CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged
Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
28 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality.
146
Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the
produce and may be labelled as to name of the variety.
NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.
Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)29.
Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety or
commercial type (optional). 6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
Commercial Identification
- Class;
- Size (size code or minimum and maximum weight or diameter in grams or mm,
respectively); - Net weight (optional).
Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7- CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the Codex
General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for
pesticides established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
8- HYGIENE
It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and
handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of
Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of
Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the
Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-
1997).
29 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.
147
STANDARD FOR ORANGES– WTO
1- DEFINITION OF PRODUCE
This Standard applies to commercial varieties of oranges grown from Citrus sinensis (L.)
Osbeck, of the Rutaceae family, to be supplied fresh to the consumer, after preparation and
packaging. Oranges for industrial processing are excluded.
2- PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the oranges
must be:
- whole;
- sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded;
- clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
- practically free of pests affecting the general appearance of the produce;
- practically free of damage caused by pests;
- free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold storage;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- free of damage caused by low and/or high temperatures;
- free of damage caused by frost;
- free of signs of internal shrivelling;
- practically free of bruising and/or extensive healed-over cuts.
2.1.1 The oranges must have reached an appropriate degree of development and ripeness account
being taken of the characteristics of the variety, the time of picking and the area in which they are
grown.
The development and condition of the oranges must be such as to enable them:
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
Oranges satisfying these requirements may be “degreened”. This treatment is permitted only if the
other natural organoleptic characteristics are not modified.
2.2 MATURITY CRITERIA
The maturity of oranges is defined by the following parameters:
- Colouring;
- Minimum juice content, calculated in relation to the total weight of the fruit and after extraction of the juice by means of a hand press.
148
2.2.1 Colouring
The degree of colouring shall be such that, following normal development, the oranges reach their
normal variety colour at their destination point, account being taken of the time of picking, the
growing area and the duration of transport.
Colouring must be typical of the variety. Fruits with a light green colour are allowed, provided it does
not exceed one-fifth of the total surface area of the fruit.
Oranges produced in areas with high air temperatures and high relative humidity conditions during
the developing period can be of a green colour exceeding one fifth of the total surface area, provided
they satisfy the criteria mentioned in Section 2.2.2 below.
2.2.2 Minimum Juice Content
- Blood oranges 30%
- Navels group 33%
- Other varieties 35%
- Varieties Mosambi, Sathgudi and Pacitan
with more than one-fifth green colour 33%
- Other varieties with more than one-fifth green colour 45%
2.3 CLASSIFICATION
Oranges are classified in three classes defined below:
2.3.1 “Extra” Class
Oranges in this class must be of superior quality. In shape, external appearance, development and
colouring, they must be characteristic of the variety and/or commercial type. They must be free of
defects, with the exception of very slight superficial defects, provided these do not affect the general
appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package.
2.3.2 Class I
Oranges in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type. The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect
the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the
package:
- slight defect in shape;
- slight defect in colouring;
- slight skin defects occurring during the formation of the fruit, such as silver scurfs, russets,etc.;
- slight healed defects due to a mechanical cause such as hail damage, rubbing, damage from handling, etc.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the pulp of the fruit.
2.3.3 Class II
This class includes oranges which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects, however, may be
allowed, provided the oranges retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation:
149
- defect in shape;
- defect in colouring;
- skin defects occurring during the formation of the fruit, such as silver scurfs, russets, etc.;
- healed defects due to a mechanical cause such as hail damage, rubbing, damage from handling, etc.;
- rough skin; - superficial healed skin alterations;
- slight and partial detachment of the pericarp.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the pulp of the fruit.
3. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SIZING
Size is determined by the maximum diameter of the equatorial section of the fruit, in accordance with
the following table:
Size Code Diameter (mm)
0 92 – 110
1 87 – 100
2 84 – 96
3 81 – 92
4 77 – 88
5 73 – 84
6 70 – 80
7 67 – 76
8 64 – 73
9 62 – 70
10 60 – 68
11 58 – 66
12 56 – 63
13 53 – 60
Oranges of a diameter below 53 mm are excluded.
Oranges may be packed by count. In this case, provided the size uniformity required by the Standard
is retained, the size range in the package may fall outside a single size code, but within two adjacent
codes.
150
Uniformity in size is achieved by the above mentioned size scale, unless otherwise stated, as follows:
(i) for fruit arranged in regular layers in the package, including unit consumer packages, the maximum difference between the smallest and the largest fruit, within a single size code or, in the case of oranges packed by count, within two adjacent codes, must not exceed the following maxima:
Size Code Maximum difference between
fruit in the same package in mm
0 to 2 11
3 to 6 9
7 to 13 7
(ii) for fruit not arranged in regular layers in packages and fruit in individual rigid packages for direct sale to the consumer, the difference between the smallest and the largest fruit in the same package must not exceed the range of the appropriate size grade in the size scale, or, in the case of oranges packed by count, the range in mm of one of the two adjacent codes concerned.
(iii) for fruit in bulk bins and fruit in individual non-rigid (nets, bags) packages for direct sale to the consumer, the maximum size difference between the smallest and the largest fruit in the same lot or package must not exceed the range obtained by grouping three consecutive sizes in the size scale.
4. PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not satisfying
the requirements of the class indicated.
4.1 QUALITY TOLERANCES
4.1.1 “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of oranges not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.2 Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of oranges not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.3 Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of oranges satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor the
minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting or any other deterioration
rendering it unfit for consumption.
Within this tolerance, a maximum of 5% is allowed of fruit showing slight superficial unhealed
damage, dry cuts or soft and shrivelled fruit.
4.2 SIZE TOLERANCES
For all classes, 10% by number or weight of oranges corresponding to the size immediately above
and/or below that indicated on the package.
The 10% tolerance only applies to fruit whose diameter is not less than 50 mm.
151
5. PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
5.1 UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only oranges of the same origin, variety
and/or commercial type, quality and size, and appreciably of the same degree of ripeness and
development. The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire
contents. In addition, uniformity of colouring is required for “Extra” Class.
5.2 PACKAGING
Oranges must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used inside
the package must be new30, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or internal
damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Oranges shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International Code
of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
5.2.1 Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure
suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the oranges. Packages must be free of all foreign matter
and smell.
5.3 PRESENTATION
The oranges may be presented as follows:
(a) Arranged in regular layers in the package. This form of presentation is mandatory for “Extra” Class and optional for Classes I and II;
(b) Not arranged in packages. This type of presentation is only allowed for Class I and II;
(c) In individual packages for direct consumer sale of a weight less than 5 kg, either made up by number or by weight of fruit.
6. MARKING OR LABELLING
6.1 CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged
Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
6.1.1 Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package (or lot for produce presented in bulk)
shall be labelled as to the name of the produce and may be labelled as to the name of the variety
and/or commercial type.
6.2 NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.
30 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality.
152
6.2.1 Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)31.
6.2.2 Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety and/or
commercial type (optional)32. 6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
6.2.4 Commercial Identification
- Class;
- Size code for fruit presented in accordance with the size scale or the upper and the lower limiting size code in the case of three consecutive sizes of the size scale;
- Size code (or, when fruit packed by count fall under two adjacent codes, size codes or minimum and maximum diameter in mm) and number of fruit, in the case of fruit arranged in layers in the package;
- If appropriate, a statement indicating the use of preservatives; - Net weight
(optional).
6.2.5 Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7. CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the Codex
General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for
pesticides established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
8. HYGIENE
8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and
handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of
Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of
Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the
Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-
1997).
31 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent
abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark. 32 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the variety.
153
STANDARD FOR BANANAS – WTO
1. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE
This Standard applies to commercial varieties of bananas grown from Musa spp. (AAA), of the
Musaceae family, in the green state, to be supplied fresh to the consumer, after preparation and
packaging. Bananas intended for cooking only (plantains) or for industrial processing are excluded.
Varieties covered by this Standard are included in the Annex.
2. PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the bananas
must be:
- whole (taking the finger as the reference);
- sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is
excluded;
- clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
- practically free of pests affecting the general appearance of the produce;
- practically free of damage caused by pests;
- free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold
storage, and bananas packed under modified atmosphere conditions;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- firm;
- free of damage caused by low temperatures;
- practically free of bruises;
- free of malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers;
- with pistils removed;
- with the stalk intact, without bending, fungal damage or desiccation.
In addition, hands and clusters must include:
- a sufficient portion of the crown of normal colouring, sound and free of fungal contamination;
- a cleanly cut crown, not bevelled or torn, with no stalk fragments.
2.1.1 The development and condition of the bananas must be such as to enable them:
- to reach the appropriate stage of physiological maturity corresponding to the particular
characteristics of the variety;
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination in order to ripen satisfactorily.
154
2.2 CLASSIFICATION
Bananas are classified in three classes defined below:
2.2.1 “Extra” Class
Bananas in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type. The fingers must be free of defects, with the exception of very slight superficial
defects, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation in the package.
2.2.2 Class I
Bananas in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety. The
following slight defects of the fingers, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect the
general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package:
- slight defects in shape and colour;
- slight skin defects due to rubbing and other superficial defects not exceeding 2 cm2 of the total
surface area.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the flesh of the fruit.
2.2.3 Class II
This class includes bananas which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects, however, may be
allowed, provided the bananas retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation:
- defects in shape and colour, provided the product retains the normal characteristics of bananas;
- skin defects due to scraping, scabs, rubbing, blemishes or other causes not exceeding 4 cm2 of
the total surface area.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the flesh of the fruit.
3. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SIZING
For the purposes of sizing bananas of the Gros Michel and Cavendish sub-groups, the length of the
fingers is determined along the outside curve from the blossom end to the base of the pedicel where
the edible pulp ends and the diameter is defined as the thickness of a transverse section between the
lateral faces. The reference fruit for measurement of the length and grade is:
- for hands, the median finger on the outer row of the hand;
- for clusters, the finger next to the cut section of the hand, on the outer row of the cluster.
The minimum length should not be less than 14.0 cm and the minimum grade not less than 2.7 cm.
4. PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed for produce not satisfying the requirements
of the class indicated.
155
4.1 QUALITY TOLERANCES
4.1.1 “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of bananas not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.2 Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of bananas not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.3 Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of bananas satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor the
minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting, major imperfections or any
other deterioration rendering it unfit for consumption.
4.2 SIZE TOLERANCES
For all classes, 10% by number or weight of bananas not satisfying the requirements as regards
sizing, but falling within the size immediately above or below those indicated in Section 3.
5. PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
5.1 UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only bananas of the same origin, variety,
and quality. The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire
contents.
5.2 PACKAGING
Bananas must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used inside
the package must be new33, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or internal
damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Bananas shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International Code
of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
5.2.1 Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure
suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the bananas. Packages must be free of all foreign matter
and smell.
5.3 PRESENTATION
- The bananas must be presented in hands and clusters (parts of hands) of at least four fingers.
Bananas may also be presented as single fingers;
- Clusters with no more than two missing fingers are allowed, provided the stalk is not torn but
cleanly cut, without damage to the neighbouring fingers;
- Not more than one cluster of three fingers with the same characteristics as the other fruit in the
package may be present per row.
33 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality.
156
6. MARKING OR LABELLING
6.1 CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of
Prepackaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
6.1.1 Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the
produce and may be labelled as to name of the variety.
6.2 NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.
6.2.1 Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)34.
6.2.2 Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety or
commercial type (optional). 6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
6.2.4 Commercial Identification
- Bananas in fingers (when appropriate);
- Class;
- Net weight (optional).
6.2.5 Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7. CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the Codex
General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for
pesticides established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
8. HYGIENE
8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and
handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of
Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of
Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
34 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent
abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.
157
8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the
Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-
1997).
STANDARD FOR MANGOES – WTO
1. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE
This Standard applies to commercial varieties of mangoes grown from Mangifera indica L., of the
Anacardiaceae family, to be supplied fresh to the consumer, after preparation and packaging.
Mangoes for industrial processing are excluded.
2. PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the mangoes
must be:
- whole;
- sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is
excluded;
- clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
- practically free of damage caused by pests;
- free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold
storage;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- firm;
- fresh in appearance;
- free of damage caused by low temperatures;
- free of black necrotic stains or trails;
- free of marked bruising;
- sufficiently developed and display satisfactory ripeness.
When a peduncle is present, it shall be no longer than 1.0 cm.
2.1.1 The development and condition of the mangoes must be such as to enable them:
- to ensure a continuation of the maturation process until they reach the appropriate degree of
maturity corresponding to the varietal characteristics;
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
In relation to the evolution of maturing, the colour may vary according to variety.
158
2.2 CLASSIFICATION
Mangoes are classified in three classes defined below:
2.2.1 “Extra” Class
Mangoes in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety. They
must be free of defects, with the exception of very slight superficial defects, provided these do not
affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the
package.
2.2.2 Class I
Mangoes in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety. The
following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect the general
appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package:
- slight defects in shape;
- slight skin defects due to rubbing or sunburn, suberized stains due to resin exudation (elongated
trails included) and healed bruises not exceeding 3, 4, 5 cm² for size groups A, B, C respectively.
2.2.3 Class II
This class includes mangoes which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects, however, may be
allowed, provided the mangoes retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation:
- defects in shape;
- skin defects due to rubbing or sunburn, suberized stains due to resin exudation (elongated trails
included) and healed bruises not exceeding 5, 6, 7 cm² for size groups A, B, C respectively.
In Classes I and II, scattered suberized rusty lenticels, as well as yellowing of green varieties due to
exposure to direct sunlight, not exceeding 40% of the surface and not showing any signs of necrosis
are allowed.
3. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SIZING
Size is determined by the weight of the fruit, in accordance with the following table:
Size Code Weight (in grams)
A 200 - 350
B 351 - 550
C 551 - 800
The maximum permissible difference between fruit in the same package belonging to one of the
above mentioned size groups shall be 75, 100 and 125 g respectively. The minimum weight of
mangoes must not be less than 200 g.
159
4. PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not satisfying
the requirements of the class indicated.
4.1 QUALITY TOLERANCES
4.1.1 “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of mangoes not satisfying the requirements of the class, but
meeting those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.2 Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of mangoes not satisfying the requirements of the class, but
meeting those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.3 Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of mangoes satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor the
minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting, marked bruising or any
other deterioration rendering it unfit for consumption.
4.2 SIZE TOLERANCES
For all classes, 10% by number or weight of mangoes in each package are permitted to be outside
(above or below) the group size range by 50% of the maximum permissible difference for the group.
In the smallest size range, mangoes must not be less than 180 g and for those in the largest size range
a maximum of 925 g applies, as follows:
Size Code Normal Size
Range
Permissible Size Range ( < 10% of fruit/package exceeding
the normal size range )
Max. permissible
difference between
fruit in each package
A 200 – 350 180 – 425 112.5
B 351 – 550 251 – 650 150
C 551 – 800 426 – 925 187.5
5. PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
5.1 UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only mangoes of the same origin, variety,
quality and size. The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire
5.2 PACKAGING
Mangoes must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used inside
the package must be new35, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or internal
damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Mangoes shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International Code
of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
35 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality.
160
5.2.1 Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure
suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the mangoes. Packages (or lot for produce presented in
bulk) must be free of all foreign matter and smell.
6. MARKING OR LABELLING
6.1 CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of
Prepackaged Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
6.1.1 Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the
produce and may be labelled as to name of the variety.
6.2 NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment. For
produce transported in bulk these particulars must appear on a document accompanying the goods.
6.2.1 Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)36.
6.2.2 Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety or
commercial type (optional). 6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
6.2.4 Commercial Identification
- Class;
- Size (size code or weight range in grams);
- Number of units (optional); - Net weight (optional).
6.2.5 Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7. CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the Codex
General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for
pesticides established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
36 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent
abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.
161
8. HYGIENE
8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and
handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of
Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of
Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the
Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-
1997).
STANDARD FOR POMEGRANATE - WTO
1. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE
This Standard applies to fruits of commercial varieties of pomegranates grown from Punica
granatum L., of the Punicaceae family, to be supplied fresh to the consumer after preparation and
packaging. Pomegranates for industrial processing are excluded.
2. PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the
pomegranates must be:
- whole;
- sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is
excluded;
- clean, free of any visible foreign matter;
- free of pests and damage caused by them affecting the general appearance of the produce;
- free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold
storage;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- free of damage caused by frost;
- free of damage caused by low and/or high temperatures;
- free of sunburns affecting the arils of the fruit.
2.1.1 The pomegranates must have reached an appropriate degree of development and ripeness in
accordance with criteria proper to the varieties and to the area in which they are grown.
162
The development and condition of the pomegranates must be such as to enable them:
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
2.2 CLASSIFICATION
Pomegranates are classified in three classes as defined below:
2.2.1 “Extra” Class
Pomegranates in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety.
They must be free of defects, with the exception of very slight superficial defects, provided these do
not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in
the package. 2.2.2 Class I
Pomegranates in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety. The
following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect the general
appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package:
- slight defects in shape;
- slight defects in coloring;
- slight skin defects including cracking.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the arils of the fruit.
2.2.3 Class II
This class includes pomegranates which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy
the minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects, however, may be
allowed, provided the pomegranates retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the
keeping quality and presentation:
- defects in shape;
- defects in coloring;
- skin defects including cracking.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the arils of the fruit.
3. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SIZING
Pomegranate may be sized by count, diameter or weight in accordance with existing commercial
trading practices. When such is the case, the package must be labelled accordingly.
A. When sized by count, size is determined by the number of individual fruit per package.
B. Pomegranate may be sized by diameter (the maximum diameter of the equatorial section of each
fruit).
The following table is a guide and may be used on an optional basis.
163
Table A - Diameter
Size Code Diameter (mm)
1 A ≥81
2 B 71 – 80
3 C 61 -70
4 D 51 – 60
5 E 40 – 50
C. Pomegranate may be sized by weight (the individual weight of each fruit).
The following table is a guide and may be used on an optional basis.
Table B - Weight
Size Code Weight (g)
1 A ≥ 501
2 B 401 - 500
3 C 301 - 400
4 D 201 - 300
5 E 125 - 200
4. PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not satisfying
the requirements of the class indicated.
4.1 QUALITY TOLERANCES 4.1.1 “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of pomegranates not satisfying the requirements of the class, but
meeting those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.2 Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of pomegranates not satisfying the requirements of the class, but
meeting those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.3 Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of pomegrantes satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor
the minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting or any other
deterioration rendering it unfit for consumption.
164
4.2 SIZE TOLERANCES
For all classes, 10% by number or weight of pomegranates corresponding to the size immediately
above and/or below that indicated on the package.
5. PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
5.1 UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only pomegranates of the same origin,
variety, quality and size (if sized). Sales packages may contain mixtures of varieties of different colors
and sizes provided they are uniform in quality and for each variety concerned, its origin.
The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire contents.
5.2 PACKAGING
Pomegranates must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used
inside the package must be new37, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or
internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Pomegranates shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Code of Practice for
Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
5.2.1 Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure
suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the pomegranates. Packages must be free of all foreign
matter and smell.
6. MARKING OR LABELLING
6.1 CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods
(CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
6.1.1 Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the
produce and may be labelled as to name of the variety, class, size (if sized) expressed in accordance
with any one of the following methods: count, size code and range, size range.
6.2 NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.
6.2.1 Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)38.
6.2.2 Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety (where
appropriate).
37 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality. 38 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.
165
6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
6.2.4 Commercial Identification
Class;
Size (if sized) expressed in accordance with any one of the following methods:
o Count,
o Size code and
range, o Size
range.
Net weight (optional).
6.2.5 Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7. CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the General
Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for
pesticides established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
8. HYGIENE
8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and
handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Code of Practice – General Principles of
Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
(CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of Hygienic Practice and Codes
of Practice.
8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with
the Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods
(CAC/GL 21-1997).
166
STANDARD FOR CUSTARD APPLE- WTO
Minimum Requirement:
Custard apple shall be-
1. firm, sound and clean, fresh, uniform size & of the same origin, variety with same degree of
maturity and development characteristics to the variety; and
2. free from any visible foreign matter, bruising, abnormal external moisture, foreign smell,
damage caused by pests or by low and high temperature.
Criteria for Range:
S.No Tradable Parameters Range-I Range-II Range-III
1 Quality Superior Very Good Good
2 Colour, shape & Size
(according to
characteristic of the
variety)
Uniform Semi- Uniform Reasonably Uniform
3 Defects allowed slight skin
defects
(blemishes,
scars, sunspots)
not exceeding 2
% of the total
surface area
slight skin defects
(blemishes, scars,
scrapes, scratches,
sunspots) not
exceeding 5 % of
the total surface
area.
1.small healed surface
scars, not likely to impair
significantly the
appearance or conservation
of the fruit.
2.skin defects (i.e.
scratches, scars, scrapes
bruises and blemishes) not
exceeding 10 % of total
surface area.
4 Range tolerances 5 % of fruits
falling in range
– ‘2’
10 % of fruits falling
in range –‘3’
Range tolerances : 15 % of
fruits with minimum
requirements
PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the custard
apples must be:
- whole;
- sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is excluded;
- clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
- practically free of pests affecting the general appearance of the produce;
- practically free of damage caused by pests;
167
- free of abnormal external moisture, excluding condensation following removal from cold storage;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- firm;
- practically free of bruising.
2.1.1 The custard apples must have reached an appropriate degree of development and ripeness in
accordance with criteria proper to the variety and to the area in which they are grown.
The development and condition of the custard apples must be such as to enable them:
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
2.2 CLASSIFICATION
Custard apples are classified in three classes defined below:
2.2.1 “Extra” Class
Custard apples in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety
and/or commercial type. They must be free of defects, with the exception of very slight superficial
defects, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation in the package.
2.2.2 Class I
Custard apples in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type. The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect
the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the
package:
slight defects of colour or shape;
slight defects on the skin due to rubbing and other superficial defects such as sunburns,
blemishes and scabs not exceeding 5% of the total surface area.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the pulp of the fruit.
2.2.3 Class II
This class includes custard apples which do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy
the minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The following defects, however, may be
allowed, provided the custard apples retain their essential characteristics as regards the quality, the
keeping quality and presentation:
- defects in shape and colour;
- defects on the skin due to rubbing and other defects such as sunburns, blemishes and scabs not exceeding 10% of the total surface area.
The defects must not, in any case, affect the pulp of the fruit.
168
3. PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not satisfying
the requirements of the class indicated.
4.1 QUALITY TOLERANCES
4.1.1 “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of Custard apples not satisfying the requirements of the class, but
meeting those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.2 Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of Custard apples not satisfying the requirements of the class, but
meeting those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.3 Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of Custard apples satisfying neither the requirements of the class
nor the minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting or any other
deterioration rendering it unfit for consumption.
4.2 SIZE TOLERANCES
For all classes, 10% by number or weight of Custard apples corresponding to the size immediately
above or below that indicated on the package.
5. PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
5.1 UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only Custard apples of the same origin,
variety and/or commercial type, quality and size. The visible part of the contents of the package must
be representative of the entire contents.
5.2 PACKAGING
Custard apples must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used
inside the package must be new39, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or
internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Custard apples shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International
Code of Practice for Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
5.2.1 Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure suitable
handling, shipping and preserving of the custard apples. Packages must be free of all foreign matter and smell.
6. MARKING OR LABELLING
6.1 CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods
(CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
39 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality.
169
6.1.1 Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the produce and
may be labelled as to name of the variety.
6.2 NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and indelibly
marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.
6.2.1 Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)40.
6.2.2 Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety or commercial type
(optional). 6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
6.2.4 Commercial Identification
- Class;
- Size (size code or minimum and maximum weight or diameter in grams or mm, respectively);
- Net weight (optional).
6.2.5 Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7. CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the Codex General Standard
for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for pesticides
established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
8. HYGIENE
8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and handled in
accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of Practice – General
Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
(CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the Principles
for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-1997).
40 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.
170
Vegetables
Standard for Onion
I. Definition of produce
This standard applies to onions of varieties (cultivars) grown from Allium
cepa L. Cepa Group to be supplied to the consumer in the natural state,
green onions with full leaves and onions for industrial processing being
excluded.
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements for onions after
preparation and packaging.
However, if applied at stages following export, products may show in relation to the
requirements of the standard:
• a slight lack of freshness and turgidity
• a slight deterioration due to their development and their tendency to perish.
The holder/seller of products may not display such products or offer them
for sale, or deliver or market them in any manner other than in conformity
with this standard. The holder/seller shall be responsible for observing
such conformity.
A. Minimum requirements
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances
allowed, the bulbs must be:
• intact
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter
• free from damage due to frost
• sufficiently dry for the intended use (in the case of onions for storing, at least the first
two outer skins and the stem must be fully dried)
• without hollow or tough stems
• practically free from pests
• free from damage caused by pests affecting the flesh
• free of abnormal external moisture
• free of any foreign smell and/or taste.
171
In addition, the stems must be twisted or clean cut and must not exceed 6 cm in
length (except for stringed onions).
The development and condition of the onions must be such as to enable them:
• to withstand transportation and handling
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
B. Classification
The onions are classified in two classes, as defined below:
(i) Class I
Onions in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic
of the variety and/or commercial type. The bulbs must be:
• firm and compact
• free from externally visible shoots
• free from swelling caused by abnormal vegetative development
• practically free of root tufts; however, for onions harvested before complete maturity,
root tufts are allowed.
The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do
not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation in the package:
• a slight defect in shape
• slight defects in colouring
• light staining that does not affect the outer skin, provided it does not cover more than
one fifth of the bulb’s surface
• superficial cracks in and partial absence of the outer skins, provided the flesh is
protected.
(ii) Class II
This class includes onions that do not qualify for inclusion in Class I but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified above.
The bulbs must be reasonably firm.
The following defects may be allowed, provided the onions retain their essential
characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
• defects in shape
• defects in colouring
• traces due to rubbing
• slight marking caused by parasites or disease
• small healed cracks
• slight healed bruising
172
• root tufts
• stains that do not affect the outer skin, provided they do not cover more than half the
bulb’s surface
• cracks in the outer skins and partial absence of the skins over a maximum of one third
of the bulb’s surface, provided the flesh is not damaged.
III. Provisions concerning sizing
Size is determined by the maximum diameter of the equatorial section.
The minimum diameter shall be 10 mm.
To ensure uniformity in size, the range in size between produce in the same
package shall not exceed:
• 5 mm where the diameter of the smallest onion is 10 mm and over but under
20 mm. However, where the diameter of the onion is 15 mm and over but
under 25 mm, the difference may be 10 mm
• 15 mm where the diameter of the smallest onion is 20 mm and over but
under 40 mm
• 20 mm where the diameter of the smallest onion is 40 mm and over but
under 70 mm
• 30 mm where the diameter of the smallest onion is 70 mm or over.
IV. Provisions concerning tolerances
At all marketing stages, tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be
allowed in each lot for produce not satisfying the requirements of the class
indicated.
A. Quality tolerances
(i) Class I
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of onions not satisfying
the requirements of the class but meeting those of Class II is allowed. Within
this tolerance not more than 1 per cent in total may consist of produce
satisfying neither the requirements of Class II quality nor the minimum
requirements, or of produce affected by decay.
(ii) Class II
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of onions satisfying
neither the requirements of the class nor the minimum requirements is
allowed. Within this tolerance not more than 2 per cent in total may consist
of produce affected by decay.
In addition, a maximum tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of
bulbs showing early evidence of externally visible shoot growth is allowed.
173
B. Size tolerances
For all classes: a total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of onions not
satisfying the requirements as regards sizing is allowed. FFV-25: Onions – 2017
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package (or lot for produce presented in bulk in the
transport vehicle) must be uniform and contain only onions of the same
origin, variety or commercial type, quality and size.
However, a mixture of onions of distinctly different commercial types
and/or colours may be packed together in a sales package, provided they
are uniform in quality and, for each commercial type and/or colour
concerned, in origin. However, in case of those mixtures uniformity in size
is not required.
The visible part of the contents of the package (or lot for produce presented in
bulk in the transport vehicle) must be representative of the entire contents.
B. Packaging
Onions must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly.
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such
as to avoid causing any external or internal damage to the produce. The
use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications, is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done
with non-toxic ink or glue.
Stickers individually affixed to the produce shall be such that, when removed,
they neither leave visible traces of glue nor lead to skin defects.
Packages (or lots for produce presented in bulk in the transport vehicle) must be
free of all foreign matter.
VI. Provisions concerning marking
Each package41 must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the
same side, legibly and indelibly marked, and visible from the outside.
For onions transported in bulk (direct loading into a transport vehicle)
these particulars must appear on a document accompanying the goods, and
attached in a visible position inside the transport vehicle.
41 These marking provisions do not apply to sales packages presented in packages. However,
they do apply to sales packages (pre-packages) presented individually.
174
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher/exporter:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if
different from the country of origin, the country) or a code mark officially
recognized by the national authority42 if the country applying such a
system is listed in the UNECE database.
B. Nature of produce
• "Onions" if the contents are not visible from the outside.
• “Mixture of onions”, or equivalent denomination, in the case of a
mixture of distinctly different commercial types and/or colours of
onions. If the produce is not visible from the outside, the commercial
types and/or colours and the quantity of each in the package must be
indicated.
C. Origin of produce
• Country of origin43 and, optionally, district where grown, or national,
regional or local place name.
• In the case of a mixture of distinctly different commercial types and/or
colours of onions of different origins, the indication of each country
of origin shall appear next to the name of the commercial type and/or
colour concerned.
D. Commercial specifications
• Class
• Size expressed by minimum and maximum diameters.
E. Official control mark (optional)
Adopted 1961
Last revised 2010
Aligned with the Standard Layout 2017
42 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or
175
Standard For Potatoes
I. Definition of produce
This standard applies to early and ware potatoes of varieties (cultivars) grown from Solanum
tuberosum L. and its hybrids, to be supplied fresh to the consumer, early and ware potatoes for
industrial processing being excluded.
Early potatoes are obtained from early varieties and/or are harvested at the beginning of the
season in the country of origin. Early potatoes means potatoes harvested before they are
completely mature, marketed immediately after their harvesting, and whose skin can be easily
removed without peeling.
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements for early and ware potatoes after
preparation and packaging.
However, if applied at stages following export, products may show in relation to the requirements of
the standard:
• a slight lack of freshness and turgidity
• a slight deterioration due to their development and their tendency to perish.
The holder/seller of products may not display such products or offer them for sale, or deliver or
market them in any manner other than in conformity with this standard. The holder/seller shall
be responsible for observing such conformity.
A. Minimum requirements
(a) Subject to the tolerances allowed, the tubers must be:
• of normal appearance for the variety, according to the producing area
• intact, i.e. they should not have had any part removed nor have suffered any damage
making them incomplete
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded
• practically clean
• firm
• free of external or internal defects detrimental to the general appearance of the
produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package, such as:
• brown stains due to heat
• cracks (including growth cracks), cuts, bites, bruises or roughness (only for
varieties of which the skin is not normally rough) exceeding 4 mm in depth
• green colouration; pale green flush not exceeding one eighth of the surface area and
which can be removed by normal peeling does not constitute a defect
• serious deformities
176
• grey, blue or black sub-epidermal stains; exceeding 5 mm in depth in the case of
ware potatoes
• rust stains, hollow or black hearts and other internal defects
• deep common potato scab and powdery potato scab, of a depth of 2 mm or more in
the case of ware potatoes
• superficial common potato scab, i.e. scab spots in all must not extend over more
than a quarter of the surface of the tuber
• frost damage and freezing injuries
• free of abnormal external moisture, i.e. adequately “dried” if they have been washed
• free of any foreign smell and/or taste.
In the case of early potatoes, a partial absence of the skin shall not be considered as a defect.
Ware potatoes must be covered with well-formed skin, i.e. the skin has to be fully developed
and mature and cover the whole surface of the tuber.
In early potatoes, no sprouting is allowed. Ware potatoes must be practically unsprouted, i.e.
sprouts may be no longer than 3 mm.
The development and condition of the early and ware potatoes must be such as to enable them:
• to withstand transportation and handling
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
(b) Each package or lot must be free from waste, i.e. attached or loose earth, detached
growth shoots, extraneous matter.
III. Provisions concerning sizing
Size of the tuber is determined by square mesh.
Tubers must be of:
• a minimum size such that they do not pass through a square mesh of:
• 28 mm x 28 mm for early potatoes
• 35 mm x 35 mm for ware potatoes
• 30 mm x 30 mm for long varieties of ware potatoes defined hereafter
• a maximum size such that they pass through a square mesh of 80 mm x 80 mm,
or for long varieties, 75 mm x 75 mm.
Early and ware potatoes exceeding the maximum size shall be allowed, provided the maximum
difference in size between the smallest and the largest tuber is not more than 30 mm and they
are marketed under a specific denomination.
Tubers of a size range between 18 mm and 35 mm can be marketed under the denomination of
"mids" or an equivalent denomination.
Uniformity in size is not compulsory. However, in sales packages up to 5 kg net weight, the
maximum difference allowed between the smallest and the largest tuber must not exceed 30
mm.
177
A variety is considered as long if it is listed as long or long oval in the national list of varieties of the
country where it has been bred.
The sizing requirements do not apply to long varieties of irregular shape (e.g. Stella, Ratte or Pink
Fir Apple).
IV. Provisions concerning tolerances
At all marketing stages, tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each lot for
produce not satisfying the minimum requirements.
A. Quality tolerances
(a) Tubers not satisfying the minimum requirements shall be allowed:
• 4 per cent by weight of tubers of early potatoes
• 6 per cent by weight of tubers of ware potatoes.
However, within this tolerance, a maximum of 1 per cent by weight of tubers affected by dry or
wet rot shall be allowed.
(b) In addition the following shall be allowed:
• 1 per cent by weight of waste for early potatoes
• 2 per cent by weight of waste, of which a maximum of 1 per cent of attached earth,
for ware potatoes.
B. Size tolerances
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by weight of tubers, not satisfying the requirements as regards sizing
is allowed.
C. Tolerances of other varieties
2 per cent by weight of other varieties is allowed.
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package (or lot for produce presented in bulk in the transport vehicle) must
be uniform and contain only early or ware potatoes of the same origin, variety, quality, colour of
the skin, colour of the flesh and size (if sized).
The visible part of the contents of the package (or lot for produce presented in bulk in the transport
vehicle) must be representative of the entire contents.
B. Packaging
Early and ware potatoes must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly and to
ensure adequate ventilation.
178
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such as to avoid causing
any external or internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or
stamps bearing trade specifications, is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done
with non-toxic ink or glue.
In the case of early potatoes, special packaging materials (e.g. peat) may be used in
order to better protect the produce during long-distance transport.44 Packages must
be free of all foreign matter.
VI. Provisions concerning marking
Each package45 must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly
and indelibly marked, and visible from the outside either printed on the package itself or on a
label secured to the fastening. If the labels are placed inside the packages (string bags), this
should be done in such a way that the indications concerning marking are readable from the
outside.
For early and ware potatoes transported in bulk (direct loading into a transport vehicle) these
particulars must appear on a document accompanying the goods, and attached in a visible
position inside the transport vehicle.
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher/exporter:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if different from the country
of origin, the country) or a code mark officially recognized by the national authority3 if the
country applying such a system is listed in the UNECE database.
B. Nature of produce
• “Early Potatoes”, “New Potatoes” or equivalent denomination, or “Ware Potatoes”
if the contents are not visible from the outside
• Name of the variety
• Specific denomination for early and ware potatoes exceeding the maximum size,
where appropriate
• “Mids” or an equivalent denomination, where appropriate.
44 The use of some packaging materials (e.g. peat) is not permitted in some countries. 45 These marking provisions do not apply to sales packages presented in packages. However, they do apply to
sales packages (pre-packages) presented individually.
3 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or
equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark, and the code
mark should be preceded by the ISO 3166 (alpha) country/area code of the recognizing country, if
not the country of origin.
179
C. Origin of produce
• Country of origin46 and, optionally, district where grown, or national, regional or
local place name.
D. Commercial specifications
• Size (if sized) expressed as minimum size followed by the words “and over” or
as minimum and maximum size
• Optional indications: colour of flesh (e.g., yellow or white), colour of skin,
shape of tuber (round or long) and cooking type (e.g., floury or firm).
E. Official control mark (optional)
Adopted 1961
Last revised 2011
Aligned with the Standard Layout 2017
The OECD Scheme for the Application of International Standards for Fruit and Vegetables has
published an explanatory illustrated brochure on the application of this standard. The
publication may be obtained from the OECD bookshop at: www.oecdbookshop.org.
Standard for Tomatoes
I. Definition of produce
This standard applies to tomatoes of varieties (cultivars) grown from Solanum
lycopersicum L. to be supplied fresh to the consumer, tomatoes for industrial
processing being excluded.
Tomatoes may be classified into the following commercial types:
• “round”;
• “ribbed”;
• “oblong” or “elongated”;
• Cherry/cocktail tomatoes (miniature varieties) of all shapes.
46 The full or a commonly used name should be indicated.
180
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements for tomatoes after
preparation and packaging.
However, if applied at stages following export, products may show in relation to the
requirements of the standard:
• a slight lack of freshness and turgidity;
• for products graded in classes other than the “Extra” Class, a slight deterioration due
to their development and their tendency to perish.
The holder/seller of products may not display such products or offer them for sale,
or deliver or market them in any manner other than in conformity with this
standard. The holder/seller shall be responsible for observing such conformity.
A. Minimum requirements
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed,
the tomatoes must be:
• intact;
• sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded;
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
• fresh in appearance;
• practically free from pests;
• free from damage caused by pests affecting the flesh;
• free of abnormal external moisture;
free of any foreign smell and/or taste.
In the case of trusses of tomatoes, the stalks must be fresh, healthy, clean and free from all leaves and
any visible foreign matter.
The development and condition of the tomatoes must be such as to enable them:
• to withstand transportation and handling;
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
B. Maturity requirements
The development and state of maturity of the tomatoes must be such as to enable them to continue
their ripening process and to reach a satisfactory degree of ripeness.
C. Classification
Tomatoes are classified in three classes, as defined below:
181
(i) “Extra” Class
Tomatoes in this class must be of superior quality. They must be firm and characteristic of the
variety.
They must be free from greenbacks and other defects, with the exception of very slight superficial
defects, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping
quality and presentation in the package.
(ii) Class I
Tomatoes in this class must be of good quality. They must be reasonably firm and characteristic of
the variety.
They must be free of cracks and visible greenbacks.
The following slight defects, however, may be allowed provided these do not affect the general
appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package:
• a slight defect in shape and development;
• slight defects in colouring;
• slight skin defects;
• very slight bruises.
Furthermore, “ribbed” tomatoes may show:
• healed cracks not more than 1 cm long;
• no excessive protuberances;
• small umbilicus, but no suberization;
• suberization of the stigma up to 1 cm2;
fine blossom scar in elongated form (like a seam), but not longer than two-thirds of the
greatest diameter of the fruit.
(iii) Class II
This class includes tomatoes that do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified above.
They must be reasonably firm (but may be slightly less firm than in Class I) and must not show
unhealed cracks.
The following defects may be allowed, provided the tomatoes retain their essential characteristics as
regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
• defects in shape and development;
• defects in colouring;
• skin defects or bruises, provided the fruit is not seriously affected;
• healed cracks not more than 3 cm in length for round, ribbed or oblong tomatoes.
Furthermore, “ribbed” tomatoes may show:
• more pronounced protuberances than allowed under Class I, but without being misshapen;
182
• an umbilicus;
• suberization of the stigma up to 2 cm2;
• fine blossom scar in elongated form (like a seam).
III. Provisions concerning sizing
Size is determined by the maximum diameter of the equatorial section, by weight or by count.
The following provisions shall not apply to
• trusses of tomatoes;
and are optional for:
• cherry and cocktail tomatoes below 40 mm in diameter;
• ribbed tomatoes of irregular shape; and
• Class II.
To ensure uniformity in size, the range in size between produce in the same package shall not exceed:
(a) For tomatoes sized by diameter:
• 10 mm, if the diameter of the smallest fruit (as indicated on the package) is under 50 mm;
• 15 mm, if the diameter of the smallest fruit (as indicated on the package) is 50 mm and
over but under 70 mm;
• 20 mm, if the diameter of the smallest fruit (as indicated on the package) is 70 mm and
over but under 100 mm
there is no limitation of difference in diameter for fruit equal or over 100 mm.
In case size codes are applied, the codes and ranges in the following table have to be respected:
Size code Diameter (mm)
0 ≤ 20
1 > 20 ≤ 25
2 > 25 ≤ 30
3 > 30 ≤ 35
4 > 35 ≤ 40
5 > 40 ≤ 47
6 > 47 ≤ 57
7 > 57 ≤ 67
8 > 67 ≤ 82
9 > 82 ≤ 102
10 > 102
183
IV. Provisions concerning tolerances
At all marketing stages, tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each lot for
produce not satisfying the requirements of the class indicated.
A. Quality tolerances
(i) “Extra” Class
A total tolerance of 5 per cent, by number or weight, of tomatoes not satisfying the requirements
of the class but meeting those of Class I is allowed. Within this tolerance not more than 0.5 per
cent in total may consist of produce satisfying the requirements of Class II quality.
(ii) Class I
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of tomatoes not satisfying the requirements
of the class but meeting those of Class II is allowed. Within this tolerance not more than 1 per
cent in total may consist of produce satisfying neither the requirements of Class II quality nor
the minimum requirements, or of produce affected by decay.
In the case of trusses of tomatoes, 5 percent, by number or weight, of tomatoes detached from the
stalk is allowed.
(iii) Class II
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of tomatoes satisfying neither the
requirements of the class nor the minimum requirements is allowed. Within this tolerance not
more than 2 per cent in total may consist of produce affected by decay.
In the case of trusses of tomatoes, 10 per cent, by number or weight, of tomatoes detached from the
stalk is allowed.
B. Size tolerances
For all classes: a total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of tomatoes not satisfying the
requirements as regards sizing is allowed.
184
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only tomatoes of the same origin, variety
or commercial type, quality and size (if sized).
The ripeness and colouring of tomatoes in “Extra” Class and Class I must be practically uniform. In
addition, the length of “oblong” tomatoes must be sufficiently uniform.
However, a mixture of tomatoes of distinctly different varieties, commercial types and/or colours may
be packed together in a package, provided they are uniform in quality and, for each variety,
commercial type and/or colour concerned, in origin. However, in case of those mixtures uniformity in
size is not required.
The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire contents.
B. Packaging
Tomatoes must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly.
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such as to avoid causing any
external or internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly paper or stamps bearing
trade specifications, is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or
glue.
Stickers individually affixed to the produce shall be such that, when removed, they neither leave
visible traces of glue nor lead to skin defects. Information lasered on single fruit should not lead to
flesh or skin defects.
Packages must be free of all foreign matter.
V. Provisions concerning marking
Each package47 must bear the following particulars in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked and visible from the outside:
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher/exporter:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if different from the country of
origin, the country) or a code mark officially recognized by the national authority48 if the country
applying such a system is listed in the UNECE data base.
47 These marking provisions do not apply to sales packages presented in packages. However, they do apply to
sales packages (pre-packages) presented individually. 48 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent
185
B. Nature of produce
• “Tomatoes” or “trusses of tomatoes” and the commercial type, or “cherry/cocktail
tomatoes” or “trusses of cherry/cocktail tomatoes” or equivalent denomination for other
miniature varieties if the contents are not visible from the outside.
• “Mixture of tomatoes”, or equivalent denomination, in the case of a mixture of distinctly
different varieties, commercial types and/or colours of tomatoes. If the produce is not
visible from the outside, the varieties, commercial types and/or colours and the quantity
of each in the package must be indicated.
• Name of the variety (optional).
C. Origin of produce
• Country of origin49 and, optionally, district where grown, or national, regional or local
place name;
• In the case of a mixture of distinctly different varieties, commercial types and/or colours
of tomatoes of different origins, the indication of each country of origin shall appear next
to the name of the variety, commercial type and/or colour concerned.
D. Commercial specifications
• Class
• Size (if sized) expressed as
minimum and maximum diameters; or
minimum and maximum weights; or
size code as specified in Section III; or
count followed by the minimum and maximum sizes.
E. Official control mark (optional)
Adopted 1961
Last revised 2017
Aligned with the Standard Layout 2017
The OECD Scheme for the Application of International Standards for Fruit and Vegetables has
published an explanatory illustrated brochure on the application of this standard. The
publication may be obtained from the OECD bookshop at: www.oecdbookshop.org
abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark, and the code mark should be
preceded by the ISO 3166 (alpha) country/area code of the recognizing country, if not the country of
origin. 49 The full or a commonly used name should be indicated.
186
Standard For Peas
I. Definition of produce
This standard applies to peas of varieties (cultivars) grown from Pisum sativum L.
subsp. sativum to be supplied fresh to the consumer, peas for industrial processing
being excluded. According to the type of consumption, peas are classified in two
groups:
• Shelling peas (round peas, wrinkled peas) intended for consumption without
the pod • Mange-tout peas and sugar snap peas intended for consumption with
the pod.
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements for peas after
preparation and packaging.
However, if applied at stages following export, products may show in relation to the
requirements of the standard:
• a slight lack of freshness and turgidity
• a slight deterioration due to their development and their tendency to perish.
The holder/seller of products may not display such products or offer them for sale,
or deliver or market them in any manner other than in conformity with this
standard. The holder/seller shall be responsible for observing such conformity.
A. Minimum requirements
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed,
• The pods must be:
• intact; however mange-tout peas and sugar snap peas may have their ends
removed
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter (including parts of the
flowers)
• free from hard filaments or films in mange-tout peas and sugar snap peas
• practically free from pests
• practically free from damage caused by pests
• free of abnormal external moisture • free of any foreign smell and/or taste.
• The seeds must be:
• fresh
187
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded
• normally developed in shelling peas
• practically free from pests
• practically free from damage caused by pests
• free of any foreign smell and/or taste.
The development and condition of the peas must be such as to enable them:
• to withstand transportation and handling
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
B. Classification
Peas are classified in two classes, as defined below:
(i) Class I
Peas in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety
and/or commercial type.
The pods must be:
• fresh and turgid
• free from damage caused by hail
• free from damage caused by heating.
For shelling peas:
• the pods must be:
• with peduncles attached
• well filled, containing at least 5 seeds.
• the seeds must be:
• well-formed
• tender
• succulent and sufficiently firm, i.e., when squeezed between two fingers they
should become flat without disintegrating
• at least half the full-grown size but not full-grown
• non-farinaceous
• undamaged, with no cracks in the skin.
The following slight defects of the pod, however, may be allowed, provided
these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the
keeping quality and presentation in the package:
• slight skin defects, injuries and bruises
• a slight defect in shape
188
• slight defects in colouring.
For mange-tout peas and sugar snap peas:
• the seeds if present must be small and underdeveloped.
The following very slight defects of the pod, however, may be allowed,
provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality,
the keeping quality and presentation in the package:
• a very slight defect in shape
• very slight defects in colouring
• very slight skin defects, injuries and bruises.
(iii) Class II
This class includes peas that do not qualify for inclusion in Class I but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified above.
For shelling peas:
• the pods must contain at least three seeds
• peas may be more developed than those in Class I, but over-mature peas are
excluded.
The following defects may be allowed provided the peas retain their essential
characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
• defects of the pods:
• skin defects, injuries and bruises, provided these are not progressive and there
is no risk of the seeds being affected • some loss of freshness, excluding wilted
pods.
• defects of the seeds:
• a slight defect in shape
• a slight defect in colouring
• slightly harder
• slightly damaged.
For mange-tout peas and sugar snap peas:
• the seeds, if present, may be slightly more developed than in Class I.
The following slight defects may be allowed provided the peas retain their essential
characteristics as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
• slight defects in shape, including those due to seed formation
• slight defects in colouring
• slight skin defects, injuries and bruises
• some loss of freshness excluding wilted pods.
189
III. Provisions concerning sizing
There is no sizing requirement for peas.
IV. Provisions concerning tolerances
A. Quality tolerances
At all marketing stages, tolerances in respect of quality shall be allowed in each lot for
produce not satisfying the requirements of the class indicated.
(i) Class I
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of peas not satisfying the
requirements of the class, but meeting those of Class II is allowed. Within this
tolerance not more than 1 per cent in total may consist of produce satisfying neither
the requirements of Class II quality nor the minimum requirements, or of produce
affected by decay.
(ii) Class II
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of peas satisfying neither the
requirements of the class nor the minimum requirements is allowed. Within this
tolerance not more than 2 per cent in total may consist of produce affected by decay.
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only peas of the same origin,
variety or commercial type and quality.
The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire
contents.
B. Packaging
Peas must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly.
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such as to
avoid causing any external or internal damage to the produce. The use of materials,
particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade specifications, is allowed, provided the
printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Packages must be free of all foreign matter.
VI. Provisions concerning marking
Each package50 must bear the following particulars in letters grouped on the same
side, legibly and indelibly marked, and visible from the outside:
50 These marking provisions do not apply to sales packages presented in packages. However, they do apply to
sales packages (pre-packages) presented individually.
190
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher/exporter:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if different from
the country of origin, the country) or a code mark officially recognized by the
national authority51 if the country applying such a system is listed in the UNECE
database.
B. Nature of produce
• “Shelling peas”, “Mange-tout peas”, “Sugar snap peas” or equivalent
denomination if the contents are not visible from the outside
• “Trimmed”, “Topped and tailed”, or equivalent denomination, where mange-
tout peas and sugar snap peas are presented without the peduncle and/or the
pistil, as the case may be if the contents are not visible from the outside.
C. Origin of produce
• Country of origin52 and, optionally, district where grown, or national, regional or
local place name.
D. Commercial specifications
• Class.
Standard for chilli peppers
I. Definition of produce
This standard applies to chilli peppers53 of varieties (cultivars) grown from Capsicum
annuum, C. baccatum, C. chinense, C. frutescens and C. pubescens, to be supplied
fresh to the consumer, chilli peppers for industrial processing being excluded.
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements for chilli peppers after
preparation and packaging.
51 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or
equivalent abbreviations) » has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark, and the code
mark should be preceded with the ISO 3166 (alpha) country/area code of the recognizing country,
if not the country of origin. 52 The full or a commonly used name should be indicated. 53 Chilli peppers with a minimum pungency of 900 on the Scoville Index. For levels of pungency see
the annex.
191
However, if applied at stages following export, products may show in relation to the requirements
of the standard:
• a slight lack of freshness and turgidity
• for products graded in classes other than the “Extra” Class, a slight
deterioration due to their development and their tendency to perish.
The holder/seller of products may not display such products or offer them for sale, or
deliver or market them in any manner other than in conformity with this standard. The
holder/seller shall be responsible for observing such conformity.
A. Minimum requirements
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the
chilli peppers must be:
• intact, the stalk and calyx may be missing, provided that the break is clean and the
adjacent skin is not damaged
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter
• practically free from pests
• practically free from damage caused by pests
• fresh in appearance, including stalk and calyx
• firm
• free from damage caused by low and/or high temperatures
• free of abnormal external moisture
• free of any foreign smell and/or taste.
The development and condition of the chilli peppers must be such as to enable them:
• to withstand transportation and handling
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
B. Classification
Chilli peppers are classified in three classes, as defined below:
(i) “Extra” Class
Chilli peppers in this class must be of superior quality. They must be characteristic of the variety
and/or commercial type.
They must be free from defects, with the exception of very slight superficial defects, provided these
do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation
in the package. Colour change due to ripening is not considered a defect.
192
(ii) Class I
Chilli peppers in this class must be of good quality. They must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type.
The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect the general
appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package:
• a slight defect in shape
• slight defects in colouring; colour change due to ripening is not considered a defect
• slight skin defects
• a slightly damaged stalk, if present.
(iii) Class II
This class includes chilli peppers that do not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified above.
The following defects may be allowed, provided the chilli peppers retain their essential characteristics
as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
• defects in shape
• defects in colouring; colour change due to ripening is not considered a defect
• skin defects
• damaged stalk and calyx, if present
• slight lack of freshness of the stalk and calyx.
• total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of chilli peppers satisfying neither
the requirements of the class nor the minimum requirements is allowed. Within this
tolerance not more than 2 per cent in total may consist of produce affected by decay.
B. Size tolerances
For all classes (if sized): a total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of chilli peppers not
satisfying the requirements as regards sizing is allowed.
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only chilli peppers of the same origin,
variety or commercial type, quality and size (if sized).
However, a mixture of chilli peppers of distinctly different colours and/or commercial types may be
packed together in a sales package, provided they are uniform in quality and, for each colour and/or
commercial type concerned, in origin. However, in case of those mixtures uniformity in size is not
required.
The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire contents.
193
B. Packaging
The chilli peppers must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly.
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such as to avoid causing any
external or internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly paper or stamps bearing
trade specifications, is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or
glue.
Stickers individually affixed to the produce shall be such that, when removed, they neither leave
visible traces of glue, nor lead to skin defects. Information lasered on single fruit should not lead to
flesh or skin defects.
Packages must be free of all foreign matter.
VI. Provisions concerning marking
Each package54 must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside:
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher/exporter:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if different from the country of
origin, the country) or a code mark officially recognized by the national authority55 if the country
applying such a system is listed in the UNECE database.
B. Nature of produce
• “Chilli peppers” if the contents are not visible from the outside
• Name of the commercial type
• “Mixture of chilli peppers”, or equivalent denomination, in the case of a mixture of
distinctly different colours and/or commercial types of chilli peppers. If the produce
is not visible from the outside, the colours and/or commercial types and the quantity
of each in the package must be indicated
• Level of pungency indicated as “mild”, “medium”, “hot” or “extra hot”, as
appropriate.
54 These marking provisions do not apply to sales packages presented in packages. However, they do apply to
sales packages (pre-packages) presented individually.
55 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent
abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark, and the code mark should be
preceded by the ISO 3166 (alpha) country/area code of the recognizing country, if not the country of origin.
194
C. Origin of produce
Country of origin56 and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
In the case of packages containing a mixture of distinctly different colours and/or commercial types of
chilli peppers of different origin, the indication of each country of origin shall appear next to the name
of the colours and/or commercial type concerned.
D. Commercial specifications
• Class
• Size (if sized) expressed as minimum and maximum length (in cm) or as minimum
and maximum diameter (in mm)
• Size code (optional).
E. Official control mark (optional)
Adopted 2013
Aligned with the Standard Layout 2017
The UNECE has published an explanatory illustrated brochure on the application of this standard. The
publication may be obtained from the UNECE at:
56 The full or a commonly used name should be indicated.
195
SPICES
Standards for Garlic
I. Definition of produce
This standard applies to garlic of varieties (cultivars) grown from Allium sativum var. sativum L.
to be supplied fresh57, semi-dry58 or dry59 to the consumer, green garlic with full leaves and
undeveloped cloves and garlic for industrial processing being excluded.
The garlic bulbs may consist of several or only one clove (“solo garlic”).
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements for garlic after preparation and
packaging.
However, if applied at stages following export, products may show in relation to the requirements of
the standard:
• a slight lack of freshness and turgidity
• for products graded in classes other than the “Extra” Class, a slight deterioration
due to their development and their tendency to perish.
The holder/seller of products may not display such products or offer them for sale, or deliver or
market them in any manner other than in conformity with this standard. The holder/seller shall
be responsible for observing such conformity.
A. Minimum requirements
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the bulbs
must be:
• intact; covered with outer skin
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for
consumption is excluded
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter
• practically free from pests
• practically free from damage caused by pests
• firm
• free of damage caused by frost or sun
57 "Fresh garlic" means produce with a "fresh" stem and with the outer skin of the bulb still fresh. 58 "Semi-dry garlic" means fresh produce with the stem and outer skin of the bulb not completely dry. 59 "Dry garlic" means fresh produce in which the stem, outer skin of the bulb and the skin surround each clove
are completely dry.
196
• free of externally visible sprouts
• free of abnormal external moisture
• free of any foreign smell and/or taste60.
For dry garlic, if trimmed, the stem length should not exceed 3 cm.
The development and condition of the garlic must be such as to enable them:
• to withstand transportation and handling
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
B. Classification
Garlic is classified in three classes, as defined below:
(i) "Extra" Class
Garlic in this class must be of superior quality. It must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type.
The bulbs must be:
• of regular shape
• properly cleaned.
The cloves must be compact.
The roots must be cut close to the base of the bulb in the case of dry garlic.
Garlic must be free from defects, with the exception of very slight superficial defects, provided
these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and
presentation in the package.
(ii) Class I
Garlic in this class must be of good quality. It must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type.
The cloves must be reasonably compact.
The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not affect the
general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in
the package:
slight tears in the outer skin of the bulb • a slight defect in shape.
(iii) Class II
This class includes garlic that does not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes but satisfies the
minimum requirements specified above.
60 This provision does not preclude a specific smell and/or specific taste caused by smoking in countries or
regions where smoked garlic is considered as a fresh vegetable.
197
The following defects may be allowed, provided the garlic retains its essential characteristics as
regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
• tears in the outer skin or missing parts of the outer skin of the bulb
• staining on the outer skins of the bulb provided it does not cover more than half the
bulb surface
• healed injuries
• slight bruises
• irregular shape
• no more than three cloves, or one fifth of the total number of cloves in a bulb
(whichever is lower) may be missing
III. Provisions concerning sizing
Size is determined by the maximum diameter of the equatorial section.
The minimum diameter shall be:
• 45 mm for "Extra" Class
• 30 mm for Classes I and II.
To ensure uniformity in size, the range in size between produce in the same package shall not
exceed:
• 15 mm when the smallest bulb has a diameter of less than 40 mm
• 20 mm when the smallest bulb has a diameter equal to or more than 40 mm.
IV. Provisions concerning tolerances
At all marketing stages, tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each lot for
produce not satisfying the requirements of the class indicated.
A. Quality tolerances
(i) "Extra" Class
A total tolerance of 5 per cent, by number or weight, of garlic not satisfying the
requirements of the class but meeting those of Class I is allowed. Within this tolerance
not more than 0.5 per cent in total may consist of produce satisfying the requirements
of Class II quality.
(ii) Class I
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of garlic not satisfying the
requirements of the class but meeting those of Class II is allowed. Within this
tolerance not more than 1 per cent in total may consist of produce satisfying neither
the requirements of Class II quality nor the minimum requirements, or of produce
affected by decay.
Within this tolerance not more than 1 per cent by weight of bulbs may have cloves with externally
visible sprouts.
198
In addition to this tolerance, not more than 25 per cent, by number or weight, of bulbs showing
slight staining on the outer skin of the bulb, provided it does not cover more than a quarter of
the bulb surface.
(iii) Class II
A total tolerance of 10 per cent, by number or weight, of garlic satisfying neither
the requirements of the class nor the minimum requirements is allowed. Within this
tolerance not more than 2 per cent in total may consist of produce affected by decay.
In addition to this tolerance, not more than 5 per cent by weight of bulbs may have cloves with
externally visible sprouts.
B. Size tolerances
For all classes: a total tolerance of 10 per cent by weight of garlic not satisfying the requirements as
regards sizing is allowed.
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only garlic of the same origin, variety or
commercial type, quality and size.
The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of the entire contents.
B. Packaging
Garlic must be packed in such a way so as to protect the produce properly.
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such as to avoid causing
any external or internal damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly paper or
stamps bearing trade specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done
with non-toxic ink or glue.
Packages must be free of all foreign matter.
VI. Provisions concerning marking
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly
and indelibly marked, and visible from the outside
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher/exporter:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if different from the country of
origin, the country) or a code mark officially recognized by the national authority61 if the country
applying such a system is listed in the UNECE database.
61 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or
199
B. Nature of produce
"Fresh garlic", "Semi-dry garlic", "Dry garlic" or "Solo
garlic" if the contents are not visible from the outside;
Commercial type ("White garlic", "Pink garlic", etc.);
"Smoked", where appropriate.
C. Origin of produce
Country of origin62 and, optionally, district where grown, or national, regional or local place name.
D. Commercial specifications
• Class
• Size expressed as minimum and maximum diameters of the bulbs.
E. Official control mark (optional)
Adopted 1966
Last revised 2016
Aligned with the Standard Layout 2017
The OECD Scheme for the Application of International Standards for Fruit and Vegetables has
published an explanatory illustrated brochure on the application of this standard. The
publication may be obtained from the OECD bookshop at: www.oecdbookshop.org.
equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark, and the code
mark should be preceded by the ISO 3166 (alpha) country/area code of the recognizing country, if
not the country of origin. 62 The full or a commonly used name should be indicated.
200
STANDARD FOR GINGER- WTO
1. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE
This Standard applies to the rhizome of commercial varieties of ginger grown from Zingiber
officinale Roscoe, of the Zingiberaceae family, to be supplied fresh to the consumer, after preparation
and packaging. Ginger for industrial processing is excluded.
2. PROVISIONS CONCERNING QUALITY
2.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances allowed, the ginger
must be:
- whole;
- sound, produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit for consumption is
excluded;
- clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
- practically free of damage caused by pests affecting the general appearance of the produce;
- free of abnormal external moisture, and properly dried if washed, excluding condensation
following removal from cold storage;
- free of any foreign smell and/or taste;
- firm;
- free of abrasions, provided light abrasions which have been dried properly are not regarded as
a defect;
- sufficiently dry for the intended use; skin, stems and cuts due to harvesting must be fully dried.
2.1.1 The development and condition of the ginger must be such as to enable it:
- to withstand transport and handling; and
- to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
2.2 CLASSIFICATION
Ginger is classified in three classes defined below:
2.2.1 “Extra” Class
Ginger in this class must be of superior quality. It must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type. The roots must be cleaned, well shaped and free of defects, with the exception of
very slight superficial defects, provided these do not affect the general appearance of the produce, the
quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the package.
2.2.2 Class I
Ginger in this class must be of good quality. It must be characteristic of the variety and/or
commercial type. The roots must be firm, without evidence of shrivelling or dehydration and without
evidence of sprouting. The following slight defects, however, may be allowed, provided these do not
affect the general appearance of the produce, the quality, the keeping quality and presentation in the
package:
201
Amended 2005.
- Slight skin defects due to rubbing provided they are healed and dry and the total surface area
affected not exceeding 10%.
2.2.3 Class II
This class includes ginger which does not qualify for inclusion in the higher classes, but satisfy the
minimum requirements specified in Section 2.1 above. The roots should be reasonably firm. The
following defects, however, may be allowed, provided the ginger retains their essential characteristics
as regards the quality, the keeping quality and presentation:
- skin defects due to rubbing, provided they are healed and dry and the total surface area affected
not exceeding 15%;
- early signs of sprouting (not more than 10% by weight by unit of presentation);
- slight markings caused by pests;
- healed suberized cracks, provided they are completely dry;
- slight traces of soil; - bruises.
3. PROVISIONS CONCERNING SIZING
Size is determined by the weight of the ginger.
Size Code Weight (grams)
A 300
B 200
C 150
4. PROVISIONS CONCERNING TOLERANCES
Tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in each package for produce not satisfying
the requirements of the class indicated.
4.1 QUALITY TOLERANCES
4.1.1 “Extra” Class
Five percent by number or weight of ginger not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class I or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.2 Class I
Ten percent by number or weight of ginger not satisfying the requirements of the class, but meeting
those of Class II or, exceptionally, coming within the tolerances of that class.
4.1.3 Class II
Ten percent by number or weight of ginger satisfying neither the requirements of the class nor the
minimum requirements, with the exception of produce affected by rotting or any other deterioration
rendering it unfit for consumption.
202
4.2 SIZE TOLERANCES
For “Extra” Class 5%; and for Class I and Class II, 10%; by number or by weight of ginger not
satisfying the requirements as regards sizing.
5. PROVISIONS CONCERNING PRESENTATION
5.1 UNIFORMITY
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only ginger of the same origin, variety,
and/or commercial type, quality and size. The visible part of the contents of the package must be
representative of the entire contents.
The weight of the heaviest hand (rhizome) may not be more than twice the weight of the lightest hand
(rhizome) in the same package.
5.2 PACKAGING
Ginger must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly. The materials used inside
the package must be new63, clean, and of a quality such as to avoid causing any external or internal
damage to the produce. The use of materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade
specifications is allowed, provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
Ginger shall be packed in each container in compliance with the Recommended International Code of
Practice for Packaging and Transport of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 44-1995).
5.2.1 Description of Containers
The containers shall meet the quality, hygiene, ventilation and resistance characteristics to ensure
suitable handling, shipping and preserving of the ginger. Packages must be free of all foreign matter
and smell.
6. MARKING OR LABELLING
6.1 CONSUMER PACKAGES
In addition to the requirements of the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged
Foods (CODEX STAN 1-1985), the following specific provisions apply:
6.1.1 Nature of Produce
If the produce is not visible from the outside, each package shall be labelled as to the name of the
produce and may be labelled as to name of the variety and/or commercial type.
6.2 NON-RETAIL CONTAINERS
Each package must bear the following particulars, in letters grouped on the same side, legibly and
indelibly marked, and visible from the outside, or in the documents accompanying the shipment.
6.2.1 Identification
Name and address of exporter, packer and/or dispatcher. Identification code (optional)64.
63 For the purposes of this Standard, this includes recycled material of food-grade quality. 64 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name and address.
However, in the case where a code mark is used, the reference “packer and/or dispatcher (or equivalent abbreviations)” has to be indicated in close connection with the code mark.
203
6.2.2 Nature of Produce
Name of the produce if the contents are not visible from the outside. Name of the variety and/or
commercial type (optional). 6.2.3 Origin of Produce
Country of origin and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local place name.
6.2.4 Commercial Identification
- Class;
- Size (size code or minimum and maximum weight in grams);
- Number of units (optional); - Net weight (optional).
6.2.5 Official Inspection Mark (optional)
7. CONTAMINANTS
7.1 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum levels of the Codex
General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CODEX STAN 193-1995).
7.2 The produce covered by this Standard shall comply with the maximum residue limits for
pesticides established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
8. HYGIENE
8.1 It is recommended that the produce covered by the provisions of this Standard be prepared and
handled in accordance with the appropriate sections of the Recommended International Code of
Practice – General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC/RCP 1-1969), Code of Hygienic Practice for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003), and other relevant Codex texts such as Codes of
Hygienic Practice and Codes of Practice.
8.2 The produce should comply with any microbiological criteria established in accordance with the
Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods (CAC/GL 21-
1997).
Standard for Dried Chilli Peppers- UN
204
I. Definition of produce
This Standard applies to whole dried chilli peppers 65 of varieties (cultivars)
grown from Capsicum annuum L., C. baccatum, C. chinense, C. frutescens and C.
pubescens, intended for direct consumption or for food when intended to be mixed
with other products for direct consumption without further processing. This
standard does not apply to whole dried chilli peppers for industrial processing.
II. Provisions concerning quality
The purpose of the standard is to define the quality requirements of whole dried chilli
peppers at the export-control stage, after preparation and packaging.
However, if applied at stages following export, the holder/seller shall be
responsible for observing the requirements of the standard. The holder/seller of
products not in conformity with this standard may not display such products or
offer them for sale, or deliver or market them in any other manner.
A. Minimum requirements 66
In all classes, subject to the special provisions for each class and the tolerances
allowed, the whole dried chilli peppers must display the following characteristics:
• intact; however, slight superficial damage is not considered as a defect;
peduncle and calyx may be missing but flesh at the calyx area must be intact,
if present peduncle and calyx must be intact
• sound; produce affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make it unfit
for consumption is excluded;
• clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter;
• sufficiently developed;
• free from living pests whatever their stage of development;
• free from damage caused by pests, including the presence of dead insects
and/or mites, their debris or excreta;
• free from blemishes, areas of discolouration or spread stains in pronounced
contrast with the rest of the produce affecting in aggregate not more than 25
per cent of the surface of the produce;
• free from mould;
• free of abnormal external moisture;
• free of foreign smell and/or taste.
The condition of the whole dried chilli peppers must be such as to enable them:
65 Whole dried chilli peppers presenting a minimum pungency of 900 Scoville index; for levels of
pungency, see annex.
66 Definitions of terms and defects are listed in annex III of the Standard Layout – Recommended
terms and definition of defects for standards of dry (Inshell Nuts and Nut Kernels) and
dried produce
www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/dry/StandardLayout/StandardLayoutDDP_e.pdf
205
• to withstand transportation and handling;
• to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.
B. Moisture content 67
Whole dried chilli peppers should have a maximum moisture content in accordance
with the following table:
Commercial type
Maximum
moisture content
in per cent (m/m)
Guajillo, Pasilla
and other
commercial
similar flesh
texture
types having
13.5
Ancho, Mulato
and other
commercial
types having
similar flesh
texture
12.5
Puya
and other
commercial
types having
similar flesh
texture
10.0
De árbol
and other
commercial
types having
similar flesh
texture
9.0
C. Classification
In accordance with the defects allowed in section “IV. Provisions concerning
tolerances”, whole dried chilli peppers are classified into the following classes:
“Extra” Class, Class I and Class II.
The defects allowed must not affect the general appearance of the produce as regards
quality, keeping quality and presentation in the package.
67 The moisture content is determined by the method given in annex I of the Standard Layout –
Determination of the moisture content for dried produce
www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/dry/StandardLayout/StandardLayoutDDP_e.pdf. The laboratory
reference method shall be used in cases of dispute.
206
D. Colour
Colour classification for whole dried chilli peppers is mandatory for the commercial
types in accordance with the table below:
Commercial
type
Extra Class I Class II
Guajillo Uniform; intense or dark red with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
Puya Uniform; intense or dark red with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
Ancho Uniform; light red to dark red with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
Mulato Uniform; intense black with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
Pasilla Uniform intense black with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
De árbol Uniform intense
red with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
Others Uniform;
colour
characteristic of the
commercial type
with no
discoloration
Slight variation in
colour intensity with
no discoloration
Variation in colour intensity including discolouration within the limits of the minimum
requirements
E. Pungency
Commercial types of whole dried chilli peppers are characterized by pungency in
accordance with the annex. In case of dispute, or when requested, the packer and/or
dispatcher/shipper shall supply information regarding the level of pungency.
207
III. Provisions concerning sizing
Size is determined by the length (measured from the apex to the insertion point of the
peduncle at the calyx).
The commercial types are sized in accordance with the following table:
Commercial type Class Length (cm)
Pasilla Extra > 20
Class I > 14
Commercial type Class Length (cm)
Class II
Guajillo Extra
Class I > 10
Class II
Puya Extra
Class I
Class II
Ancho, Mulato Extra
Class I > 7
Class II < 7
De árbol Extra
Class I
Class II
Chipotle Extra
Class I
Class II
Cascabel Extra
Class I
Class II
Habanero, Catarina Extra
Class I
Class II
Piquin (bird eye) Extra
Class I
Class II
Other commercial types are sized in accordance with the existing commercial trading
practices.
Sizing of whole dried chilli peppers is mandatory for “Extra” Class and Class I.
IV. Provisions concerning tolerances
At all marketing stages, tolerances in respect of quality and size shall be allowed in
each lot for produce not satisfying the minimum requirements of the class indicated.
208
A. Quality tolerances
Tolerances allowed,
percentage of
defective produce, by
number
or weight
Defects allowed Extra Class I Class II
(a) Tolerances for produce not satisfying the
minimum requirements of which no more than:
Blemishes, stains, discolorations, burns,
scratches, scars,
5
10
15
deformations 2 5 10
Decayed and mouldy produce 0.5 1 2
Damaged by pests 0.5 0.5 1
Living pests 0 0 0
Missing stems and broken
produce (b) Size tolerances, if
sized
5
7
10
For produce not conforming to the size
indicated, in total (c) Tolerances for other
defects
10 10 10
Foreign matter (by weight)
Whole dried chilli peppers belonging to commercial
types other
1 1 1
than that indicated 5 10 10
V. Provisions concerning presentation
A. Uniformity
The contents of each package must be uniform and contain only whole dried chilli
peppers of the same origin, quality, colour, size (if sized) and commercial type.
The visible part of the contents of the package must be representative of its entire contents.
B. Packaging
Whole dried chilli peppers must be packed in such a way as to protect the produce properly.
The materials used inside the package must be clean and of a quality such as to
avoid causing any external or internal damage to the produce. The use of
materials, particularly of paper or stamps bearing trade specifications, is allowed,
provided the printing or labelling has been done with non-toxic ink or glue.
209
Packages must be free of all foreign matter in accordance with the table of tolerances in
section “IV. Provisions concerning tolerances”.
VI. Provisions concerning marking
Each package68 must bear the following particulars in letters grouped on the same side,
legibly and indelibly marked and visible from the outside:
A. Identification
Packer and/or dispatcher:
Name and physical address (e.g. street/city/region/postal code and, if different
from the country of origin, the country) or a code mark officially recognized by
the national authority69.
B. Nature of produce
• “Whole dried chilli peppers”
• Name of the commercial type
• Level of pungency indicated as “mild”, “medium”, “hot” or “extra hot”, as
appropriate.
C. Origin of produce
Country of origin70 and, optionally, district where grown or national, regional or local
place name.
D. Commercial specifications
• Class
• Size (if sized): expressed as size range or minimum size followed by "and
over"
• Method of drying (optional)
• “Best before” followed by the date (optional).
E. Official control mark (optional)
Adopted 2013
68 These marking provisions do not apply to sales packages presented in packages.
69 The national legislation of a number of countries requires the explicit declaration of the name
and address. However, in cases where a code mark is used, the reference “packer
and/or dispatcher” (or equivalent abbreviations) must be indicated in close
connection with the code mark, and the code mark should be preceded by the ISO
3166 alpha country code of the recognizing country, if not the country of origin. 70 The full or commonly used name should be indicated.
210
Annex
Pungency of certain commercial types of whole dried chilli peppers
The following commercial types of whole dried chilli peppers are characterized by
pungency in accordance with the following table.
Level of pungency
Total
capsaicinoids
(μg/g dry weight)
Pungency Intensity
a
(Scoville units )
Examples of
commercial
types
Mild 60 - 200 900 - 3000 Ancho, Mulato,
Pasilla
Medium 201-334 3001 – 5
000
Guajillo,
Cascabel,
Catarina
Medium to hot 335 – 2009 5 001 – 30
000
Puya, De árbol,
Chipotle
Hot 2010 –
6670
30 010 – 100
000
Piquín (Bird Eye)
Extra hot > 6670 > 100 000 Habanero