An Economic analysis on Marketing of Green Gram in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

Green gram (Vigna radiata L.), commonly known as mung bean, had been recognised as an important pulse crop cultivated extensively in tropical and subtropical regions, particularly in South and Southeast Asia. It had been valued for its high nutritional content, as it contained significant levels of protein (Approximately 20-25%), essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals, thereby contributing to dietary security and balanced nutrition. The crop had been characterised by its short duration, typically maturing within 60-70 days, which made it suitable for inclusion in multiple cropping systems and crop rotations. Agronomically, green gram had demonstrated the ability to improve soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, thereby reducing the dependency on synthetic fertilisers and enhancing sustainable agricultural practices. It had been cultivated under diverse agro-climatic conditions, ranging from irrigated to rainfed areas, although it performed optimally in well-drained loamy soils with moderate rainfall. Despite its advantages, the production of green gram had faced several constraints, including susceptibility to pests and diseases such as yellow mosaic virus, inadequate access to quality seeds, and limited adoption of improved cultivation practices. Nevertheless, advancements in varietal development, integrated pest management, and improved agronomic techniques had contributed to enhancing productivity and resilience. Furthermore, green gram had played a significant role in improving farmers' income due to its relatively low input requirements and market demand. In conclusion, green gram had been regarded as a vital pulse crop with substantial economic, nutritional, and ecological benefits, making it an integral component of sustainable agricultural systems. Among all the blocks within the district, Maholi block had been selected purposively due to the higher concentration of farmers engaged in green gram cultivation. A comprehensive list of villages within the selected block had been prepared, from which five per cent of villages with a relatively large number of green gram growers had been chosen through random sampling. Subsequently, a list of all green gram cultivators in the selected villages had been compiled and categorised into five groups based on landholding size, namely marginal (below 1 hectare), small (1-2 hectares), semi-medium (2-4 hectares), medium (4-10 hectares), and large (above 10 hectares). From this frame, a total of 120 farmers had been selected using proportionate random sampling. In addition, 5 wholesalers, 5 distributors, and 10 retailers had been selected to analyse marketing costs, margins, price spread, producer's share in the consumer's rupee, and marketing efficiency in the study area. Primary data had been collected through a wellstructured schedule using direct personal interviews, while secondary data had been obtained from books, journals, reports, and official records of district and block headquarters. The collected data had been analysed using appropriate statistical tools, and the findings pertained to the agricultural year 2024-2025. It was observed that the producer sold the produce to wholesalers at ₹ 6050 per quintal and incurred a marketing cost of ₹ 125, resulting in a net receipt of ₹ 5925. The wholesaler bore a cost of ₹ 170 and retained a margin of ₹ 150, subsequently selling the produce to retailers at ₹ 6220. The retailer incurred ₹ 95 as marketing cost and earned a margin of ₹ 50 before selling to consumers at ₹ 6315 per quintal. The overall price spread had been ₹ 655, indicating higher intermediation costs compared to direct channels. The producer's share in the consumer's rupee had been 89.62%, which was relatively lower due to the involvement of intermediaries. The marketing efficiency had been calculated at 8.65, reflecting a less efficient system compared to direct marketing channels.

Analytical Tools

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

The overall analysis of marketing channels for green gram revealed significant variations in cost structure, margins, price spread, producer's share, and marketing efficiency. It had been observed that Channel I, which involved direct sale from producer to consumer, had proved to be more efficient and beneficial for farmers. The absence of intermediaries had resulted in minimal marketing costs and zero marketing margins, thereby reducing the price spread considerably. Consequently, the producer's share in the consumer's rupee had been remarkably high, ensuring better income realisation for farmers. In contrast, Channel II had involved multiple intermediaries such as wholesalers and retailers, which had increased marketing costs and added margins at each stage. This had led to a higher price spread and a comparatively lower share of producers in the final consumer price. Moreover, the marketing efficiency in Channel II had been significantly lower, indicating inefficiencies in the system. The findings suggested that shorter marketing channels had enhanced economic returns to producers and improved overall efficiency. Therefore, promoting direct marketing practices and reducing unnecessary intermediaries had been essential for ensuring higher profitability and strengthening the marketing system of green gram in the study area.

References

1. Ahmed F, Hussain A. Role of digital platforms in the marketing of green gram. J Digit Agric. 2021;10(2):134-148.
2. Chaturvedi M, Rathi S. Impact of organic certification on the marketability of green gram. Int. J Org Agric. 2020;9(3):102-115.
3. Chauhan V, Singh T. Price trends and market volatility of green gram in Indian agricultural markets. Indian J Agric Econ. 2017;22(3):299-312.
4. Gupta A, Malhotra R. Role of agricultural cooperatives in enhancing market access of green gram farmers in Haryana. Coop Mark J. 2017;13(2):89-103.
5. Gupta N, Verma S. Supply chain management of green gram in Uttar Pradesh: Efficiency and marketability. Int. J Supply Chain Manag. 2019;8(2):112-126.
6. Jain R, Mehta V. Impact of market information systems on the marketing efficiency of green gram. J Inform Technol Agric. 2014;5(3):187-201.
7. Kumar P, Sharma R. Impact of marketing interventions on the profitability of green gram farmers in Madhya Pradesh. Agric Econ Rev. 2020;12(4):334-348.
8. Patel H, Desai K. Consumer preferences and market demand for green gram in Gujarat. J Consum Res Agric. 2018;7(1):76-89.
9. Rao P, Swaminathan S. Socio-economic factors affecting the marketing of green gram in rural India. J Rural Dev Agric. 2012;8(1):65-79.
10. Reddy M, Kumar S. Impact of government policies and subsidies on the marketing of green gram. J Policy Res Agric. 2016;10(2):143-157.
11. Sharma A, Bhattacharya P. Role of cooperatives in the marketing of green gram in Maharashtra. Coop Stud J. 2015;19(4):210-225.
12. Sharma D, Patel J. Effects of government procurement policies on the marketing of green gram. J Agric Policy Res. 2018;11(1):67-81.
13. Singh A, Rao S. Marketing channels and economic returns of green gram farming in Rajasthan. J Agric Mark. 2021;15(3):245-258.
14. Verma P, Singh K. Marketing strategies of smallholder green gram farmers in Punjab. Agric Mark J. 2019;15(4):223-237.