The Journal of Research ANGRAU
Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university Contents of 41(1) 2013 - acharya ng ranga agricultural university
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BLACKGRAM IN GULBARGA The total costs (Rs. 798) and margins (Rs. 633) were more in channel-II than channel-I, because of which the price spread was more and producers share in consumer’s price was less in channel II. Price spread was Rs. 1093 and Rs. 881 in channel I and II respectively. Multiple regression model was employed to study determinants of profit margin per quintal of pulses. Out of five variables included in the model three variables significantly explained the variation in profit margin per quintal of pulses (R 2 = 0.92). Operating cost of production, marketing cost and gross price received by the producer were found significantly influencing profit margin (Table 3). The coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0.92) showed that about 92 percent of the variation in profit was explained by the variables included in the model. The result showed that, one rupee increase in operating cost decreases the profit margin per quintal by Rs.0.72. Reduction in the marketing cost increases the profit margin per quintal of blackgram. If the marketing cost is increased by one rupee, farmer experiences less profit margin (Rs.5.66). If the market price received by the producer is increased by one rupee, the profit margin of blackgram will be increased by Rs.0.74. Education level and fixed cost of production were found to be non-significant. Table 1. Cost of cultivation of Blackgram (per hectare) Sl.No Particulars Farmers Small farmer Large farmer Pooled 1.Operational cost (Rs.) a Human Labour i. Owned labours ii. Hired labours b. Bullock labour i. Owned labours 7995 8162 8104 5914 2471 5077 2080 5692 3027 5167 5016 5059 3468 3229 3304 ii. Hired labours 1699 1787 1754 c Tractor Power 608 1220 819 d. Seed e. FYM f. Fertilizers g. Plant protection chemicals h. Interest on working capital Total operational cost (Rs.) a. Land Revenue 752 783 773 1750 1560 1643 2998 3082 3052 2200 2660 2507 1503 1574 1537 22972 24057 23493 100 100 100 76
DEEPAK et al Table 2 Price spread and marketing margin for blackgram (Rs/qtl) S.No Particulars Channel I (Rs/qtl) Blackgram Channel II (Rs/qtl) 1 Producer a) Gross price received 3371 3198 b) Marketing cost 159 199 Net price received 3211 2999 2 Commission Agent a) Marketing cost 90 -- b) Margin 69 3 Trader a) Purchase price 3198 b) Marketing cost -- 135 c) Selling price 3450 d) Margin 117 4 Processor a) Purchase price 3529 3450 b) Marketing cost 126 126 c) Processing cost 199 199 d) Selling price per quintal of dal Dall 5790 5790 e) Selling price of per quintal of dal multiplied with conversion factor (CF) 3821 3821 f) Margin 166 245 5 5 Wholesaler Wholesaler a) a) Purchase Purchase price price 3821 3821 3821 3821 b) b) Marketing Marketing cost cost 62 62 62 62 c) c) Selling price per quintal of dall Selling price per quintal of dall 5950 5950 5950 5950 d) d) Selling price of per quintal of dal Selling price of per quintal of dal multiplied with CF multiplied with CF 3927 3927 3927 3927 e) e) Margin Margin 106 106 106 106 6 6 Retailer Retailer a) a) Purchase price Purchase price 3927 3927 3927 3927 b) b) Marketing cost Marketing cost 76 76 77 77 c) c) Selling price per quintal of dall Selling price per quintal of dall 6200 6200 6200 6200 77
- Page 25 and 26: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 20-29, 2013 INF
- Page 27 and 28: PRASAD and PRASADINI of bulk densit
- Page 29 and 30: PRASAD and PRASADINI to as high as
- Page 31 and 32: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 4 . Infl
- Page 33 and 34: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 8. Influ
- Page 35 and 36: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 30-38, 2013 GEN
- Page 37 and 38: VEMANNA et al The range in mean val
- Page 39 and 40: VEMANNA et al grain yield per plant
- Page 41 and 42: VEMANNA et al 41
- Page 43 and 44: VEMANNA et al Singh, S. P and Khan,
- Page 45 and 46: RAMANA et al RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Page 47 and 48: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 42-46, 2013 A S
- Page 49 and 50: RAJANNA et. al. Table 2. Reasons fo
- Page 51 and 52: RAJANNA et al the present findings
- Page 53 and 54: NARASIMHA et al Table 1. Proximate
- Page 55 and 56: NARASIMHA et al Maynard, L., Lossli
- Page 57 and 58: RAMANA et al with small follicles m
- Page 59 and 60: RAMANA et al Characteristics of fol
- Page 61 and 62: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 63 and 64: KIRTHY et al Akhtar et al., 2008; S
- Page 65 and 66: KIRTHY et al El Gharras H. 2009. Po
- Page 67 and 68: SANDYARANI et al Weed parameters li
- Page 69 and 70: SANDYARANI et al Table 2. Influence
- Page 71 and 72: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 73 and 74: KUMAR et al Table 2. Effect of seed
- Page 75: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 79 and 80: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 81 and 82: YAMINI et al Table 3. Estimates of
- Page 83 and 84: YAMINI et al coupled with high per
- Page 85 and 86: LOKESH et al Table 1. Clustering pa
- Page 87 and 88: LOKESH et al Table 4. Mean values o
- Page 89 and 90: ABIRAMI et al Socio-economic Impact
- Page 91 and 92: ABIRAMI et al socio-economic impact
- Page 93 and 94: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 95 and 96: VEMANNA et al Table 1. Discriminant
- Page 97 and 98: VEMANNA et al total biomass, fresh
- Page 99 and 100: RAO et al Table 1. Plant height, nu
- Page 101 and 102: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 103 and 104: DEVI et al S.No Category Frequency
- Page 105 and 106: DEVI et al extension contact and ma
- Page 107 and 108: NIRMALA and VASANTHA earliness in a
- Page 109 and 110: NIRMALA and VASANTHA adopted this t
- Page 111 and 112: SUDHARANI et al Table 1. Genotypic
- Page 113 and 114: SUDHARANI et al At genotypic level,
- Page 115 and 116: NIRMALA et al weight of pods per pl
- Page 117 and 118: NIRMALA et al Table 3. Cluster mean
- Page 119 and 120: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 121 and 122: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
- Page 123 and 124: PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI 6.5 6.
- Page 125 and 126: PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI REFERE
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BLACKGRAM IN GULBARGA<br />
<strong>The</strong> total costs (Rs. 798) and margins (Rs.<br />
633) were more in channel-II than channel-I, because<br />
<strong>of</strong> which the price spread was more and producers<br />
share in consumer’s price was less in channel II.<br />
Price spread was Rs. 1093 and Rs. 881 in channel I<br />
and II respectively.<br />
Multiple regression model was employed to<br />
study determinants <strong>of</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>it margin per quintal <strong>of</strong><br />
pulses. Out <strong>of</strong> five variables included in the model<br />
three variables significantly explained the variation<br />
in pr<strong>of</strong>it margin per quintal <strong>of</strong> pulses (R 2 = 0.92).<br />
Operating cost <strong>of</strong> production, marketing cost and<br />
gross price received by the producer were found<br />
significantly influencing pr<strong>of</strong>it margin (Table 3).<br />
<strong>The</strong> coefficient <strong>of</strong> determination (R 2 = 0.92)<br />
showed that about 92 percent <strong>of</strong> the variation in pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
was explained by the variables included in the model.<br />
<strong>The</strong> result showed that, one rupee increase in<br />
operating cost decreases the pr<strong>of</strong>it margin per quintal<br />
by Rs.0.72. Reduction in the marketing cost increases<br />
the pr<strong>of</strong>it margin per quintal <strong>of</strong> blackgram. If the<br />
marketing cost is increased by one rupee, farmer<br />
experiences less pr<strong>of</strong>it margin (Rs.5.66). If the market<br />
price received by the producer is increased by one<br />
rupee, the pr<strong>of</strong>it margin <strong>of</strong> blackgram will be<br />
increased by Rs.0.74. Education level and fixed cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> production were found to be non-significant.<br />
Table 1. Cost <strong>of</strong> cultivation <strong>of</strong> Blackgram (per hectare)<br />
Sl.No<br />
Particulars<br />
Farmers<br />
Small farmer Large farmer Pooled<br />
1.Operational cost (Rs.)<br />
a Human Labour<br />
i. Owned labours<br />
ii. Hired labours<br />
b. Bullock labour<br />
i. Owned labours<br />
7995 8162 8104<br />
5914 2471 5077<br />
2080 5692 3027<br />
5167 5016 5059<br />
3468 3229 3304<br />
ii.<br />
Hired labours<br />
1699 1787 1754<br />
c<br />
Tractor Power<br />
608 1220 819<br />
d. Seed<br />
e. FYM<br />
f. Fertilizers<br />
g.<br />
Plant protection<br />
chemicals<br />
h. Interest on working<br />
capital<br />
Total operational<br />
cost (Rs.)<br />
a. Land Revenue<br />
752 783 773<br />
1750 1560 1643<br />
2998 3082 3052<br />
2200 2660 2507<br />
1503 1574 1537<br />
22972 24057 23493<br />
100 100 100<br />
76
Change language