© The Authors, 2022, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author: cuevas.venancio@inifap.gob.mx
Blanca Sánchez-Toledano
1
Rubén Góngora-Pérez
2
Marco López-Santiago
3
Venancio Cuevas-Reyes
4*
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2022, 39(2): e223934
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v39.n2.12
Socioeconomics
Associate editor: Dra. Fátima Urdaneta
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Keywords:
Direct marketing
Vegetables
Gross margin
Comercialization
Productive break-even point and marketing margins of the jalapeño peppers producer
(Capsicum annuum ‘jalapeño’) in Mexico
Punto de equilibrio productivo y márgenes de comercialización del productor de chile jalapeño
(Capsicum annuum ‘
jalapeño’) en México
Ponto de equilíbrio produtivo e margens de comercialização do produtor de pimenta jalapeño
(Capsicum annuum ‘jalapeño’) no México
1
Campo Experimental Zacatecas-INIFAP. Apartado Postal
Núm. 18, Calera de Víctor Rosales, Zacatecas, México. CP.
98500.
2
Campo Experimental Chetumal-INIFAP. Carretera
Chetumal-Bacalar, km 25 Chetumal Quintana Roo. CP.
97900.
3
Universidad Autónoma Chapingo-Unidad Regional
Universitaria de Zonas Áridas, Carretera Gómez Palacio –
Ciudad Juárez, Bermejillo, 35230 km 40, Durango, México.
4
Campo Experimental Valle de México-INIFAP. Carretera
Los Reyes-Texcoco, km 13,5. Texcoco, Estado de México.
CP. 56250.
Received: 06-12-2021
Accepted: 26-05-2022
Published: 22-06-2022
Abstract
Farmers in Mexico are increasingly interested in higher-value alternatives
to commodity production. The direct sales channel is a potentially attractive
marketing alternative as it offers higher net income to farmers. However,
in Mexico, few farmers use direct sales. The objective of this study, was to
estimate the productive breakeven point and the marketing margins of the
jalapeño pepper production in order to obtain protability for the producers
of this vegetable in Quintana Roo, Mexico. A sampling for nite populations
was carried out, and the sample size was 89 producers. Results showed that
a minimum of 10,754.5 kg.ha
-1
is required with a rural sale price no less than
5.6 $.kg
-1
of jalapeño pepper (equivalent to $0.20), to maintain a protable
and sustainable commercial supply of the crop. Producers sold most of their
jalapeño production to wholesalers (58.4%), despite results showed the fact,
that direct markets are the most protable marketing channel for farmers
of the area. The gross marketing margin was 74.5%, which indicated that,
by each peso paid for jalapeño consumers, 74 cents corresponded to the
intermediation process, and 25 cents to the producer. The organization of
producers is crucial to increase the quality of the product and for a greater
presence in the marketing chain.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2022, 39(2): e223934. April - June. ISSN 2477-9407.2-6 |
Resumen
Los agricultores en México están cada vez más interesados
en alternativas de mayor valor para la producción de productos
básicos. El canal de venta directa es una alternativa de marketing
potencialmente atractiva, ya que ofrece mayores ingresos netos a
los agricultores. Sin embargo, en México son pocos los agricultores
que utilizan la venta directa. El objetivo de este estudio, consistió
en estimar el punto de equilibrio productivo y los márgenes de
comercialización de la producción de chile jalapeño con la nalidad
de obtener rentabilidad por parte de los productores de esta hortaliza
en Quintana Roo, México. Se realizó un muestreo para poblaciones
nitas y el tamaño de la muestra fue de 89 productores. Los resultados
mostraron que para que el cultivo mantenga una oferta comercial
rentable y sostenible, se requiere como mínimo 10.754,5 kg.ha
-1
a
un precio rural de venta no menor a los 5,6 $. kg
-1
de chile jalapeño
(equivalente a 0,20 USD). Los productores vendieron la mayor parte
de la producción de jalapeño a los mayoristas (58,4%), a pesar de
que los resultados mostraron que los mercados directos son el canal
de marketing más rentable para agricultores de la zona. El margen
bruto de comercialización se ubicó en 74,5 %, lo que indicó que, por
cada peso pagado por los consumidores de jalapeño, 74 centavos
correspondieron al proceso de intermediación, y 25 centavos fueron
para el productor. Es crucial la organización de los productores para
incrementar la calidad del producto y tener mayor presencia en la
cadena de comercialización.
Palabras clave: Marketing directo, hortalizas, margen bruto,
comercialización.
Resumo
Os agricultores no México estão cada vez mais interessados em
alternativas de maior valor para a produção de commodities. O canal
de venda direta é uma alternativa de comercialização potencialmente
atrativa, pois oferece maior renda líquida aos agricultores. No
entanto, no México poucos agricultores usam vendas diretas. O
objetivo foi estimar o ponto de equilíbrio produtivo e as margens
de comercialização da produção de pimenta jalapeño a m de obter
rentabilidade para os produtores desta hortaliça em Quintana Roo,
México. Foi realizada uma amostragem para populações nitas e
o tamanho amostral foi de 89 produtores. Os resultados mostraram
que para que a cultura mantenha uma oferta comercial rentável
e sustentável, é necessário um mínimo de 10.754,5 kg.ha
-1
a um
preço de venda rural não inferior a 5,6 $. kg
-1
de pimenta jalapeño
(equivalente a $0,20). Os produtores venderam a maior parte de sua
produção de jalapeño para atacadistas (58,4%), apesar de os resultados
mostrarem que os mercados diretos são o canal de comercialização
mais lucrativo para os agricultores da região. A margem bruta de
comercialização foi de 74,5%, o que indica que, para cada peso
pago pelos consumidores de jalapeño, 74 centavos correspondiam ao
processo de intermediação e 25 centavos ao produtor. A organização
dos produtores é fundamental para aumentar a qualidade do produto
e ter maior presença na cadeia de comercialização.
Palavras chave: Marketing direto, hortaliças, margem bruta,
marketing.
Introduction
In Mexico, the volume of fruit and vegetable production went
from 19 million tons per year in 1994 to 37 million tons in 2017
(FAOSTAT, 2018). The main vegetables produced in Mexico in
2020 were red tomato, avocado, white onion, jalapeño pepper, green
tomato and pumpkin (SIAP, 2021).
Quintana Roo contributed more than 94,000 tons of diverse
agricultural products to the consumption of other states, including
corn, sugar cane, grain sorghum, beans, corn, pumpkin, lemon and
soybeans (SIAP, 2021).
The state showed a strong tradition for jalapeño peppers
cultivation, which means almost 40 years of production (Solis et al.,
2007). In 1992, was registered its historical maximum with 26,287
tons of jalapeño pepper in 5,331 hectares. More than 2,000 families in
rural areas depend on this crop, generating more than 500,000 wages/
crop cycle, positioning itself as the crop with the greatest economic
participation in Quintana Roo. However, despite the productive
vocation of the state to this vegetable cultivation, at the beginning
of 2000, it began to experience a decrease in the planted area and
the consequent reduction in production. In 2020, the production of
jalapeño in Quintana Roo was 2,174.35 tons, with a yield of 8.82 t.ha
-1
and a production value of $20,869.83 (SIAP, 2021).
In this sense, it is relevant to consider that both, the reduction of
costs and the improvement of production and marketing, among other
factors, are vital to maintain the protability of agricultural operations
(Ashby et al., 2009). At the same time, the constant changes in the
quality of the product demanded by the market have had a considerable
impact on the technological and productive gap between the southern
producing regions (tropical and seasonal climate) and the central and
northern regions of Mexico (temperate climate and irrigation). This
last two regions mentioned, have set the quality trends in the current
market for jalapeños and other types of chili produced in the country
due to their remarkable adaptation to changes, technological level and
high competitiveness.
Hence, the challenge for producers in the state of Quintana Roo is
to remain competitive in the jalapeño pepper market, then it is key to
know the balance point in production and choose the correct channel
for the product distribution. In this regard, Espinoza et al. (2005)
warn about the decient organization in family production systems,
since the producers stop receiving part of the income from the sale by
not taking charge of its commercialization. In addition, it implies that
low prices are generated at the producer level and high prices for the
consumer (Viteri and Zambrano, 2016).
A correct strategy and a marketing channel management can
mean the success of a company, regardless of the market in which it
operates. However, in Quintana Roo there is a lack of knowledge of
the jalapeño marketing systems, specically the marketing margins
and the break-even point.
Caldentey (1992) denes agricultural marketing as the process
that takes products from the farm to the consumer; while the market
refers to the physical place where transactions between sellers and
buyers are carried out. However, to bring products to markets, certain
utilities are required (utility of possession, place, time or form) in the
marketing process (McCarthy and Perreault, 1994). Intermediaries
participate in this process. Intermediation in an economy is necessary
so that various goods, after being produced, more easily reach the
hands of those who wish to consume them (Belleamme and Peitz,
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Sánchez-Toledano et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2022, 39(2): e2239343-6 |
2010). Thus, intermediation leads to the participation of agents or
actors, and therefore an addition of value to the product.
Recent studies on the process of marketing efciency between
traditional and modern fruit and vegetable supply chains point
out, that traditional chains include a longer supply chain, physical
losses and lack of integration between producers make them more
inefcient than traditional short commercialization chains (Bisen
et al., 2018). The foregoing is in agreement with a study carried
out in California with organic producers, where it was found that a
direct sales channel provides producers with greater advantages in
relation to the investments made in specic assets (Scalco and Baker,
2019). Similarly, Indhumathi et al. (2021) point out, that the cost of
marketing is lower in the channel has not market intermediaries; in
pepper farms, intermediaries were the main problem that reduced the
net income of farmers.
The foregoing causes uncertainty regarding the protability
generated by this activity for each of the agents that participate in
the commercialization process. Therefore, the objectives of this
research were to estimate the productive breakeven point and analyze
the marketing margins of jalapeño pepper production, in order to
promote the protability of producers of this vegetable in Quintana
Roo, Mexico.
Materials y methods
Study area Location
The state of Quintana Roo is located in the southwest of the
Mexican Republic (19°36’00″N 87°55’00″W) and represents 2.26%
of the country’s Surface, with a population of 1,501,562 inhabitants.
88% live in urban areas and 12% in rural areas (INEGI, 2019).
Sample selection
The research was carried out between March and December
2020 using the direct survey technique of the agents participating
in the commercialization of jalapeño pepper (producer, retailer and
wholesaler) with a transverse temporal dimension, that is, data was
collected at a single cut in time (Torres et al., 2014).
To determine the sample size of the farmers, it was taken as a
basis, the total number of jalapeño pepper producers registered in the
records of the State Plant Health Committee (N = 115), then a simple
random sampling for nite populations was carried out, resulting in
a sample size of 89 producers. This implies a sampling error of 5%,
with a condence level of 95%. (Sánchez-Toledano et al., 2013).
The structured questionnaire contained 30 closed-type questions
with dichotomous, multiple, and scale responses (Malhotra, 2008).
The questions made to the producers allowed to collect information
regarding the production process, participating agents, production
costs, volumes and current prices. Later it were determine, the
marketing margins and the characterization of the production. As part
of the activities, prior to the survey application, a pilot tests were
carried out to ensure the clarity of the questions and minimize errors
(n = 10).
Likewise, to identify the commercialization channels it
was followed the direct method, that is, the jalapeño pepper
commercialization channel was monitored from the exit of the fresh
product from the plot, to the nal consumer. This activity was carried
out during the sales season, which made it possible to identify the
number of participating agents, prices and costs at each stage and the
level of commercialization, giving certainty and veracity regardles to
the collected information (González et al., 2014).
Sixty intermediaries were identied but only 35 were willing to
participate in the research. The intermediaries came from different
establishments of the supply centers of Quintana Roo, Puebla and the
State of Mexico. The validated questionnaire contained the following
questions: number of producers to whom purchase jalapeño pepper,
frequency of visits to the producer, volume of jalapeño pepper
acquired, expenses incurred, distribution of the product, means of
conservation and other services provided to producers.
Consumer prices were obtained through direct observation, using
convenience sampling, which is used in exploratory studies to have
an approximation of the object of study (Grande and Abascal, 2014).
Linear tours were carried out in commercial establishments such as
supermarkets, medium-sized stores and wheels markets in the state of
Quintana Roo, where a total of 41 establishments were visited.
Information analysis
Productive break-even point
First, the production costs were estimated at prices observed in
2020
agricultural year. Based on Ayala et al. (2014), the costs were
divided into: a) Variable costs (payment for chemical and organic
fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, payment for mechanized
and manual labor, and harvest) and; b) Fixed costs (general expenses
for payment of services and depreciation).
Considering r as the number of jalapeño pepper producers that
use i inputs in their production process, the production cost paid by
producer r can be calculated as follows:
(1)
Where: TC is the total cost of production paid by the producer r;
p
ri
is the price of input i paid by producer r; x
ri
is the amount of input
i that producer r buys and uses.
To estimate the income per hectare, the jalapeño sale price in 2020
and the average yield reported by the producers were used, that is,
(2)
Where: TI is the total income obtained by producer r; p
r
is the
sale price received by the producer r; and y
r
is the yield obtained by
producer r.
Subsequently, the break-even point (B.P.) was determined, which
denes the level where prots equal costs. The equations used to
calculate the indicators were the following:
(3)
(4)
Where: B.P. (SL)= Break-even point in sales value; Peq=
Equilibrium production (t.ha
-1
); FC = Fixed production cost ($.ha
-1
);
VC = Variable production cost; TI = Total income ($.ha
-1
); US = Units
sold (t.ha
-1
).
Marketing margin
To obtain the absolute (a) and relative (r) marketing margins,
it were taken into account, the average purchase and sale prices
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2022, 39(2): e223934. April - June. ISSN 2477-9407.4-6 |
was determined in 10,754.5 kg.ha
-1
as the minimum production
to maintain a protable, sustainable commercial offer and benet
to the state producer of jalapeño pepper. The rural sale price must
be no less than $5.6 kg, equivalent to 0.28 USD, considering an
exchange rate of 19.87 pesos (Banxico, 2020). However, 15.3% of
the jalapeño producers in the state sold below that price in the rst
harvest cut, while in the second and third cut they were 21.1% and
19.2% of the producers, respectively.
These ndings show that, throughout the harvest, producers
gradually lose the ability to recover the equilibrium price. This
reects the low bargaining power and protability of state chili
production. In this way, if the pertinent measures are not taken,
in the long term it can lead to a detriment or abandonment of the
activity (Cruz-Bermúdez et al., 2021; Iñiguez-Iñiguez et al., 2018).
Marketing agents of jalapeño pepper in Quintana Roo
The previous results made it possible to distinguish that the
low protability of the producers is largely associated with the
price at which they market their product. However, there are other
factors that also affect producers, such as the lack of knowledge
about marketing channels, the low value added in the products,
incipient organization and limited sales strategies. These elements,
either individually or together, have caused the producer to choose
to deliver his merchandise to the best bidder; as a consequence,
competition increases and prices stabilize, in an agreement between
large buyers (Sánchez et al., 2017).
From an economic point of view, these relations are not very
favorable for the producers, however the intermediaries have the
responsibility of transporting, storing, processing and selling
products (Ellis, 1996).
The agents involved in the commercialization process of
jalapeño pepper in Quintana Roo are indicated in gure 1. The
producers sold most of the jalapeño production to wholesalers
(58.4%) and according to the sample, only 10 % of farmers sold
directly to consumers.
Figure 1. Marketing agents of jalapeño pepper in Quintana Roo.
The majority of the production of jalapeño pepper from
Quintana Roo (51.4%) was destined for local and state supply,
30.7% was destined for the state of Puebla and 1.9% was sent to
the State of Mexico market. However, it is important to point out
that 16% of the producers didn’t know that the buyers of the nal
destination of their products came from the state of the Mexican
Republic. This makes it clear that the farmers sold to the buyer
who gave the best price without showing any interest in additional
information. However, to ensure the sustainability of agriculture in
commercial terms, the key lies in making decisions regarding the
place where producers by themselves could sell their products if
they didn’t have any intermediary.
Marketing margin of jalapeño pepper in Quintana Roo
Based on the information collected from the different agents of
the agri-food chain, the gross marketing margin was calculated at
74.5%, which indicated that, each peso paid by jalapeño consumers,
of jalapeño pepper from the sample of producers, based on the
methodology set forth by Mendoza (1991).
The marketing margins and the direct participation of the
producer were estimated as follows:
(5)
(6)
Where: GMM is gross marketing margin, PC is price paid by
the consumer, PP is the producer price.
The direct participation of the producer (DPP) was established
as follows:
(7)
(8)
Analysis of marketing agents through statistical techniques
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied, which is a non-
parametric test that allows verifying whether or not the sample
scores follow a normal distribution (Wayne, 2017). The existence
of differences between the means was veried using the Kruskal-
Wallis statistic and the next step was to determine where these
differences were found, so the Games-Howell test was implemented.
The general information was analyzed whith Excel Microsoft 2016
and IBM SPSS 20 softwares.
Results and discussion
Break-even point of jalapeño pepper at Quintana Roo state
The highest proportion of the production costs of jalapeño
pepper in Quintana Roo was caused in the harvest process (31.9%),
followed by the cost of weed control (23.5%) and fertilization
(8.17%) (table 1).
Fixed costs grouped equipment depreciation expenses and
service payments. The analysis did not consider the expense of land
rent since 73% of the farmers had private property. Given this, the
Instituted Trusts in Relation to Agriculture (FIRA, 2007) point out
that the rent of land in other crops generated an expense of 49% of
the total cost in production units under temporary conditions.
Table 1. Breakdown of average production costs per hectare of
jalapeño pepper in Quintana Roo, México, 2020 (n=89).
Variables costs Fixed costs
Soil preparation $2,900.00 ± 353.55 Depreciation $3,130.00 ± 282.84
Sowing $3,600.00 ± 282.84 Services $2,570.00 ± 212.13
Fertilization $9,400.00 ± 141.42 Total xed costs $5,700.00 ± 494.97
Weed control $13,000.00 ± 282.84
Control of pests and diseases $8,605.00 ± 212.13
Harvest $17,616.67 ± 70.71
Total variable costs $55,121.67 ± 141.42
Total production costs $60,821.67 ± 777.81
Source: own elaboration (2020).
Once the production costs of jalapeño pepper were obtained
from the interviewed producers, the productive balance point
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Sánchez-Toledano et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2022, 39(2): e2239345-6 |
74 cents corresponded to the intermediation process, and 25 cents went
to the producer; that is, the intermediation process obtains 74% of the
nal price of the product paid by the consumer, which is equivalent to
$31.8 per kg (1.60 USD) (table 2). This value is considerably high in
relation to the price paid to the producer, who bears the greatest risk
and all production costs.
The direct participation of the jalapeño producer was 25.5% of the
price paid by the consumer, which meant that the producer received
the equivalent of $8.1 per kg (0.41 USD) from a total of $31.8 per
kg, (table 2). The estimated data of the producer’s participation in the
nal price, agrees to a certain extent with reported by the Agrifood
and Fisheries Information Service -SIAP (2021) which was 33.1%
in Quintana Roo. In general, considering the national territory,
the participation of producers in the nal price of jalapeño pepper
is heterogeneous and can go from 10.3% to 71.4% (SIAP, 2021)
depending on the place of production and nal destination.
Table 2. Marketing margins (absolute and relative) and producer
participation in the nal price of jalapeño pepper.
Item Value ($/kg)
Producer price 8.1
Wholeseller price 22.0
Consumer price 31.8
Absolute ($/kg) Relative (%)
Gross sales margin 23.7 74.5
Producer share 8.1 25.5
Source: own elaboration (2020)
Agricultural benets through different marketing channels
According to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, with the Lilliefors
signicance correction, the asymptotic signicance of 0.00, 0.020 and
0.00 was obtained for the price, yield and prot variables, respectively.
The Kruskal and Wallis test was applied and it was concluded that
there are differences in at least one type of agent (table 3).
Table 3. Test of means differences by Kruskal-Wallis.
Test statistics
b
Price Yield Prot
Kruskal-Wallis H 39.118 16.545 27.884
df 2 2 2
Asymptotic signicance 0.00 0.00 0.00
b
Grouping Variable: Agent Type
Given that, it was accepted that there were differences between
means for at least one agent, it were proceeded to verify which
groups were found the differences. The Games-Howell post hoc test
was chosen, not assuming equal variances to nd out which specic
means differ from others (table 4).
The results of the Games-Howell post hoc test showed that there
are signicant differences in all the agents for price variable. Usually,
producers sales prices are higher when they sell directly to the
consumer, particularly is observed a lower average in the wholesalers.
Comparing the prices offered between retailers and wholesalers, it is
also observed that they are higher in retailers. Regarding yield, there
are no differences between producers who sell to wholesalers and
those who sell to retailers. In other words, those producers with lower
average returns tend to sell to wholesalers and retailers.
Table 4. Games-Howell Post Hoc test of the variables price, yield
and prot for different agents of jalapeño pepper.
Dependent
variable
(I) Agent (J) Agent
Averages
differences
(I-J)
Estándar
desviation
Sig.
Price
Wholeseller
Retailer -2.22167* 0.21924 0.00
Consumer -6.29667* 0.27242
0.00
Retailer
Wholeseller 2.22167* 0.21924
0.00
Consumer -4.07500* 0.25489
0.00
Consumer
Wholeseller 6.29667* 0.27242
0.00
Retailer 4.07500* 0.25489
0.00
Yield
Wholeseller
Retailer -838.333 787.971 0.542
Consumer -4430.000* 706.621 0.00
Retailer
Wholeseller 838.333 787.971 0.542
Consumer -3591.667* 659.483
0.00
Consumer
Wholeseller 4430.000* 706.621
0.00
Retailer 3591.667* 659.483
0.00
Prot
Wholeseller
Retailer -12141 5272.666 0.074
Consumidor -80089,333* 6185.067 0.00
Retailer
Wholeseller 12141 5272.666 0.074
Consumer -67948.333* 6712.801
0.00
Consumer
Wholeseller 80089.333* 6185.067
0.00
Retailer 67948,333* 6712,801
0.00
* The mean difference is signicant (P≤0,05).
Regarding the prot variable, there is no statistical difference
between producers who sell to wholesalers or retailers. As explained,
the price is higher in those producers who sell directly to the consumer,
so it was expected that they obtain higher prots on average compared
to those who sell to retailers and wholesalers. These results agree
with different studies (Pei-An et al., 2017), however, in some farms
in Taiwan even though the government promoted direct marketing,
wholesale markets were found to be the most protable marketing
channel (Lee et al., 2020).
Conclusions
The offer price of the jalapeño pepper must be $5.6 per kg and the
economic optimum is reached with a yield of 10,754.5 kg. ha
-1
. Such
amount would make possible to recover the total costs and obtain the
maximum prot, but the producers are gradually losing the capacity
to recover the equilibrium price since, throughout the harvest up to
21.1% of them sold below that price.
The marketing channel used to bring the product from the
production unit is: producer, wholesaler and nal consumer. There
is a total rupture between the producer and the nal consumer, since
the proportion of producers that sells directly to consumers is very
low. The connection between both agents is the responsibility of the
intermediaries. In this way, the producers are subject to the conditions
imposed by the marketing agents; that is, they sell to the buyer who
offers the best price without additional information such as the nal
destination of the vegetable.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Sánchez-Toledano et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2022, 39(2): e2239346-6 |
The power of the marketing agents is such that three quarters of
the nal price of the product remains in the intermediary, despite the
fact that the producer is the one who assumes the greatest risk and all
the production costs. The organization of the producers is crucial to
increase the quality of the product and improved the presence in the
marketing chain.
The margins found in this research, show the goodness of this
activity, however, there is a low bargaining power on the part of
the producers, which will prevail as long as production costs do not
decrease and they generate market strategies to place the product
through different routes or agents.
Literature cited
Ayala, G. A. V., Rivas-Valencia, P., Cortes-Espinoza, L., De la O Olán, M.,
EscobedoLópez, D., y Espitia-Rangel, E. (2014). La rentabilidad
del cultivo de amaranto (Amaranthus spp.) en la región centro de
México. CIENCIA ergo-sum, 21(1), 47-54. https://www.redalyc.org/
articulo.oa?id=10429976006.
Ashby, J., Heinrich, G., Burpee, G., Remington, T., Wilson, K., Quiros, C., &
Ferris, S. (2009). What farmers want: collective capacity for sustainable
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
7(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0439
Banxico. (2020). Tipo de cambio. https://www.banxico.org.mx.
Belleamme, P. y Peitz, M. (2010). Industrial Organization: Markets and
Strategies. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bisen, J., Patel, R.K., Kundu, K, K., and Sanjay. (2018). Marketing Efciency
between Traditional and Modern Supply Chains of Fruits and Vegetables.
Economic Affairs, 63 (2): 441-447. DOI: 10.30954/0424-2513.2.2018.21.
Caldentey, P. (1992). Comercialización de productos agrarios. Edit. Agrícola
Española. Madrid.
Cruz-Bermúdez, A., WingChing-Jones, R., & Zamora-Sanabria, R. (2021).
Factibilidad de la producción de huevos de gallinas ponedoras con acceso
a pastoreo. Agronomía Mesoamericana, 32(2), 573-586. https://doi.
org/10.15517/am.v32i2.39673
Ellis, F. (1996). Agricultural policies in developing countries. (C. U. Press., Ed.).
https://cutt.ly/nF6jUnO
Espinoza, A., Álvarez, A., De Valle, M. y Chauvete, M. (2005). La economía de
los sistemas campesinos de producción de leche en el estado de México.
Revista Técnica Pecuaria, 43(1), 39–56. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.
oa?id=61343104.
FAOSTAT (2018). Organización de las naciones unidas para la alimentación y la
agricultura (FAO). http://faostat.fao.org.
Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación con la Agricultura (FIRA). (2007). Aguacate:
análisis de rentabilidad del ciclo 2006 - 2007 y costos de cultivo para el
ciclo 2007 - 2008. Michoacán. https://cutt.ly/BF6jFx4
González, F., Rebollar, S., Hernández, J. y Guzmán, E. (2014). La
Comercialización de la miel en el Sur del Estado de México. Revista
Mexicana de Agronegocios, 18(34), 806–815. https://www.redalyc.org/
pdf/141/14131514015.pdf
Grande E. I. y E. Abascal F. (2014) Fundamentos y Técnicas de Investigación
Comercial. 12a edición. ESIC Editorial. Madrid, España.
INEGI. (2019). Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria: Resultados generales. http://
inegi.org.mx
Indhumathi, C., Senthilkumar, R., Muralidharan, C., & Selvi, R. P. (2021). Study
on Marketing Channels of Black Pepper in Kolli Hills of Namakkal
District in Tamil Nadu. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension,
Economics & Sociology, 39(11), 327-334. https://doi.org/10.9734/
ajaees/2021/v39i1130757
Iñiguez–Iñiguez, A., Carrión, L. V., Torres, M. G., & Moreno, W. S. O. (2018).
Análisis de la rentabilidad de la producción de caña de azúcar y sus
derivados. Caso productores rurales de la parroquia de Malacatos–Loja,
Ecuador. Revista Amazónica Ciencia y Tecnología, 7(2), 65-76. https://
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6977654.
Lee, B., Liu, J. Y. & Chang, H. H. (2020). The choice of marketing channel and farm
protability: Empirical evidence from small farmers. Agribusiness, 36(3),
402-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21640.
McCarthy, J. y Perreault, W. (1994). Fundamentos de comercialización. Principios
y métodos. Edit. El Ateneo. Argentina.
Mendoza, G. 1991. Compendio de mercadeo de productos agropecuarios. (I. I. de
C. para la A. (IICA), Ed.) (2da. edici.). San José. Costa Rica. https://cutt.
ly/GF6kzvg
Malhotra, K. (2008). Investigación de mercados. 5ªed., Pearson Prentice Hall.
México.
Pei-An, L., Hung-Hao, C., Junlin, H. & Kannika, S. (2017). Diversication of
marketing strategies among small farms: empirical evidence from family
farms in Taiwan. Agricultural Economics, 63(11),493-501. https://doi.
org/10.17221/148/2016-AGRICECON.
Sánchez, M., Sáchez, I., Chávez, M., González, A. y Vázquez, E. (2017).
Identicación del sistema local de comercialización del mango ataulfo en
el municipio de Huehutan, Chiapas. Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios,
40, 571–582. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=14152127006.
Sánchez-Toledano, B., Zegbe, J. y Rumayor, A. (2013). Propuesta para
evaluar el proceso de adopción de las innovaciones tecnológicas. Rev.
Mex. Cienc. Agríc, 4(6), 855–868. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.
oa?id=263128354003.
Scalco, A. R., Baker, G.A. (2019). Value capture analysis of small organic
growers and their distribution channels in California. Estudos Sociedade
e Agricultura, 27(3): 566-589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36920/esa-v27n3-6
SIAP (2021). Márgenes de comercialización chile jalapeño. https://cutt.ly/aJfxe61
Solis, C., Ibarra, I., Moreno, M., Cohen, I. S. y López, R. (2007). Producción
de chile jalapeño (capsicum annum l.) con diferentes tipos de acolchado
plástico y riego por goteo–cintilla. Revista Chapingo Serie Zonas
Áridas, 6(1), 67-75. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4555/455545068008.
pdf
Torres, E., Ludeña, M., Villagómez, F., Murillo, G., A., S., & Torres, Y. (2014).
Canales y márgenes de comercialización de leche bovina en la parroquia
Guasaganda, cantón la Maná, Cotopaxi- Ecuador. Revista Ciencia y
Tecnología. 7(2): 1–8. https://cutt.ly/vJfxETM
Viteri, G. I. V. y Zambrano, C. E. (2016). Comercialización de arroz en Ecuador:
Análisis de la evolución de precios en el eslabón productor-consumidor.
Revista Ciencia Y Tecnología, 9(2), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.18779/cyt.
v9i2.192.
Wayne, W.D. (2017). Bioestadística: Base para el análisis de las ciencias de la
salud. 4ª ed. LIMUSA. México. https://cutt.ly/UF6lRZp.