Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorT. Mohapatra

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.20

  • SJR .258 (2022)

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus


R.H. Patel, A.A. Patel, B.K. Bhatt
  • Email
1ASPEE College of Horticulture Forestry Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari – 396 450, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Patel R.H., Patel A.A., Bhatt B.K. (2023). AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF WHEAT (UNIRRIGATED) IN BHAL REGION OF AHMEDABAD DISTRICT (GUJARAT). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 45(2): 122 - 127. doi: .
The investigation was carried out to study the Economic analysis of production and marketing of wheat (unirrigated) in BHAL region of Ahmedabad district (Gujarat) covering 2 talukas, 10 villages and 150 wheat growers (19 marginal, 38 small, 44 medium and 49 large) selected through multistage stratified random sampling method. Results of the study indicated that average cost of cultivation (Cost–C2) per hectare was Rs.11, 968.38, while per hectare average yield was 9.29 quintals. The average net profit per hectare over Cost – C2 was Rs. 4228.33 per hectare and the overall input-output ratio on Cost – C2 was 1.38. The per quintal average cost on Cost–C2 basis was Rs. 1151.47 which was less than the prevailing per quintal market price during the study period showing wheat farming as a profitable activity. Cobb-Douglas production function analysis showed that 96 per cent variation in the income from the wheat production was explained by the independent variables and the sum of regression co-efficient showed increasing returns to scale. On an average 88.81 per cent of wheat production was marketed. Four agencies i.e. village merchant, wholesaler cum commission agents at regulated market, millers and consumers were preferred by the farmers for marketing their produce. About 10.25% and 11.12% of consumer’s price was shared by marketing cost and marketing margin, respectively while the producer’s share in consumer’s price was 78.63 percent and the marketing efficiency indicated an efficient channel for farmers to sell their produce.
  1. Kumar, Arun et al. (2003). Agric. Marketing. 46 (1):2-5.
  2. Kumar, Sikander and Kumar, Sandeep. (2004). Agricultural Situation in India. 61 (7): 475-485.
  3. Lal, R. C. et al. (2003). Indian J. Agric. Marketing. 17 (2): 106-110.
  4. Legesse, Dawit and Basavaraja, H. (2004). Indian J. Agric. Marketing. 18 (1):74-79.
  5. Sharma, Rajat et al. (2005). Indian J. Agric. Eton. 60 (3) 537-538.

Editorial Board

View all (0)