MAHENDRA1*, A.S. RAJPUT2, A. YADAV3, R.C. KUMAWAT4
1Department of Agricultural Economics, SKN College of Agriculture, Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, 303329, Rajasthan, India
2Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
3Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
4Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
* Corresponding Author : anjuy6047@gmail.com
Received : 09-06-2020 Accepted : 17-06-2020 Published : 30-06-2020
Volume : 12 Issue : 12 Pages : 9953 - 9956
Int J Agr Sci 12.12 (2020):9953-9956
Keywords : Marketing margins, Mungbean, Marketing cost, Price spread, Marketing channels
Academic Editor : Dr Brijesh Kumar Ojha, Dr Vijayachandra Reddy S, Singh Ajit Kumar, Basu Shrabani, Loushambam R. S.
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, 313001, Rajasthan, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed
The present investigation was undertaken with a view to study the marketing costs, margins and price spread in mungbean in the Nagaur district of Rajasthan. A random sample of 100 mungbean cultivators was selected for the study. Both primary and secondary data were used for the study. The primary data were collected from cultivators, using personal interview method for the year 2015-16. Total marketing cost in sale of mungbean was ?403.75 and ?378.21 per quintal at village and regulated market. Marketing margins in sale of mungbean have been ?380.3 per quintal at village and ?282.52 per quintal at mandi. Producer’s share in consumer’s rupee in sale of mungbean was 89.9 percent, 91.49 percent and 100 percent in village, regulated market and direct sale to consumer. Net price received in channel-III adopted by producer farmers was higher than that realized in Channel-I and channel-II.
1. Food outlook, biannual report (2016) Food and Agriculture Organization, 63-67.
2. Sidhu R.S., Sidhu M.S. and Singh J.M. (2011) Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(2), 267-273.
3. Meena S. and Singh I.P. (2012) International Journal of Commerce and Business Management, 5(2), 224-231.
4. Chavhal S.H., Katkade J.L., Kauthekar P.U., Chavan R.V., Sudewad L.S. (2014) International Journal of Commerce and Business Management, 7(2), 334-337.
5. Pichad S.P. and Wagh H.J. (2014) International Journal of Commerce and Business Management, 7(2), 256-259.