Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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
Legume Research, volume 34 issue 4 (december 2011) : 267 - 272

ANALYSIS OF MARKETABLE AND MARKETED SURPLUS OF RED GRAM IN VADODARA DISTRICT OF GUJARAT

Amruta Borate, Y.C. Zala, V.B. Darji*, K.S. Yadav
1B.A. College of Agriculture Anand Agricultural University, Anan - 388 001, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Borate Amruta, Zala Y.C., Darji* V.B., Yadav K.S. (2024). ANALYSIS OF MARKETABLE AND MARKETED SURPLUS OF RED GRAM IN VADODARA DISTRICT OF GUJARAT. Legume Research. 34(4): 267 - 272. doi: .
Present investigation was undertaken to estimate the marketable and marketed surplus of red gram and to identify the factors influencing them in Vadodara district of Gujarat. Required data were collected from 120 red gram growers spread over 10 villages of Karjan taluka during 2007-08. Multiple Regression technique was used to quantify the effect of the factors influencing marketable and marketed surplus. As red gram is market oriented crop, about 86 per cent of total production on an average was the marketable surplus and 77 per cent was marketed surplus. The results showed that marketable surplus was positively and significantly related with cropped area and average productivity in all the four categories of farms. It was negatively related with family size and quantity retained for wages in kind indicating inverse relationship between extent of marketable surplus and these factors. Further, in case of marketed surplus, the examination of individual coefficients revealed that marketed surplus was positively and significantly related with total production, current prices and financial obligation for sample as a whole while the family size showed negative sign indicating inverse relationship of marketed surplus with family size in sample farms.
  1. Anonymous (2006). Seasonal outlook on tur (red gram), Multicommodity exchange, Karvy Comtrade Ltd.
  2. Anonymous (2007a). World production of pulses v/s Indian production, http://agriwatch.com/events/pulses 2007/p/ppt.
  3. Anonymous (2007b). Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture Government of India.
  4. Anonymous (2008). District wise Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops in Gujarat State, Directorate of Agriculture, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.
  5. Bhosale, S. B. (2001). Economics of production and marketing of red gram in Osmanabad district of Maharashtra. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri.
  6. Pramod Kumar (1999). Marketed surplus of different crops across farm size:
  7. A study in Haryana. Indian J. Agric. Econ., 54 (4):500-521.

Editorial Board

View all (0)