Economics analysis in Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) in the Malwa Region of Madhya Pradesh

Introduction

Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek), commonly known as green gram, is an important pulse crop belonging to the family Leguminosae (Fabaceae), subfamily Papilionaceae, and genus Vigna (Nair et al., 2024) [18] . Mungbean occupies a significant place in Indian agriculture due to its short duration, wide adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions, and ability to enrich soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation (Giri et al., 2024) [7] . Mungbean is a diploid, selfpollinated C₃ plant with a chromosome number of 2n = 22 (Bhattacharjee, 2024) [3] . It is an annual herbaceous crop characterized by a well-developed taproot system with numerous lateral roots bearing effective nitrogen-fixing nodules (Singh, 2013). A soil pH range of 6.0 to 7.5 is considered optimal for its growth and development (Sahni et al., 2016). From a nutritional standpoint, mungbean is a rich source of high-quality plant protein, containing about 23-25% protein, 55-60% carbohydrates, 1-1.5% fat, 3-4% minerals, and 4-5% crude fiber (Kole et al., 2002) [15] . India is the largest producer and consumer of mungbean in the world. Major mungbean-growing states include Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu, (Chavan et al.,2025) [5] . In Maharashtra, mungbean is predominantly cultivated during the Kharif season under rainfed conditions in regions such as Vidarbha and Marathwada, where soil and climatic conditions are favorable (Nair et al., 2024) [18] . Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is one of the most important pulse crops grown in India due to its short duration, low input requirement, and high nutritional value. It plays a crucial role in ensuring nutritional security, improving soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, and enhancing farm income, particularly under rainfed and semi-arid agroecologies, (Kesham et al.,2021). In Madhya Pradesh, especially in the Malwa region, mungbean is widely cultivated during the Kharif and summer seasons owing to its adaptability to diverse soil and climatic conditions, (Nair et al.,2024) [18] . Despite its agronomic importance, mungbean productivity and profitability in the Malwa region remain constrained by inappropriate sowing methods, sub-optimal plant geometry, and inefficient resource utilization (Bansal et al., 2024) [2] . Economic viability is a key factor determining the adoption of improved production technologies by farmers. Variations in land preparation, seed rate, labor use, and intercultural operations associated with different sowing methods and spacing directly influence the cost of cultivation, yield realization, and net economic returns, (Bhattacharjee, 2024) [3] . Economics analysis, encompassing cost of cultivation, gross return, net return, and benefit-cost ratio, provides a comprehensive assessment of the profitability and sustainability of mungbean production (Mehta et al., 2017) [16] . Improved sowing techniques such as raised bed planting and optimized row spacing have been reported to enhance resource use efficiency, crop growth, and yield, thereby improving economic returns (Mishra et.,2025) [17] . However, region-specific information on the economic performance of these practices under Malwa conditions is limited. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the economic feasibility of different sowing methods and spacing treatments in mungbean cultivation in the Malwa region of Madhya Pradesh. The findings aim to identify economically efficient production practices that can enhance profitability, support informed decision-making by farmers, and promote sustainable mungbean cultivation in the region.

Materials and Methods

The present investigation titled "Economics analysis in Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) in the Malwa Region (M.P.). The present experiment was conducted at Crop Research Cafeteria, under Mandsaur University, Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh). Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh) which is situated at latitude 24 0 C 4'36.61''N, longitude 75 0 4'9.46'' E and at an altitude of 442.16 meters above the mean sea level. The experiment involved two main plot treatments: B 1 for flat bed sowing and B 2 for raised bed sowing. There were four sub-plot treatments based on spacing: S1 for broadcasting, S 2 for 30×30 cm spacing, S 3 for 45×30 cm spacing, and S 4 for 60×30 cm spacing. The treatment combinations were as follows: T 1: Flat bed + Broadcasting (B 1 S 1 ),T 2: Flat bed + 30×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 2 ),T 3: Flat bed + 45×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 3 ),T 4: Flat bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 4 ),T 5: Raised bed + Broadcasting (B 2 S 1 ),T 6: Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 2 ), T 7: Raised bed + 45×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 3 ) andT 8: Raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 4 ). The experiment was laid out using a split plot design with three replications. There were eight treatments in total, and the experiment was conducted in 24 plots. The gross plot size was 3.60 × 3.90 meters, which equals 14.40 m², while the net plot size was 3.0 × 3.90 meters, totaling 11.70 m². The gross plot area was calculated to be 424.70 m². For the Mungbean crop, the recommended fertilizer doses were 20 kg N, 40 kg P, and 20 kg K per hectare. The seed rate used for the experiment was 80 kg per hectare.

Results and Discussion

Cost of Cultivation

The cost of cultivation varies across the different treatments as presented in Table-1, with the lowest cost of Rs 24,200 per hectare for T 1 (B 1 S 1 -Flat bed + Broadcasting) and the highest cost of Rs 30,891 per hectare for T 2 (B 1 S 2 -Flat bed + 30×30 cm spacing). The raised bed methods tend to have slightly lower costs compared to the flat bed methods, with T 5 (B 2 S 1 -Raised bed + Broadcasting) at Rs 28,600 and T 6 (B 2 S 2 -Raised bed + 30×10 cm spacing) at Rs 26,800. The cost of cultivation varied considerably among treatments due to differences in land preparation, seed rate, and labor requirements associated with sowing methods and spacing. The lowest cost was recorded under flat bed + broadcasting (T 1 ), mainly due to minimal field operations and lower labor input. In contrast, flat bed + wider row spacing (T 2 ) incurred the highest cost, attributed to increased labor and operational inputs for line sowing. Raised bed treatments generally exhibited moderate cultivation costs, reflecting efficient land preparation and optimized input use. Similar variations in cultivation cost due to sowing geometry and bed preparation have been reported earlier in greengram and other pulse crops, (Chaudhary et [4,14,6] .

Gross Retur

Gross returns across the treatments show significant variation. The highest gross return of Rs 78,500 per hectare was achieved in T 7 (B 2 S 3 -Raised bed + 30×20 cm spacing), followed by T 2 (B 1 S 2 Flat bed +30×10 cm spacing) with Rs 71,200 and T 8 (B 2 S 4 -Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing), also achieved substantial gross returns of Rs 65,930 and Rs 65,800, respectively. Gross returns showed substantial variation across treatments, largely influenced by differences in crop establishment, growth, and yield performance. The highest gross return recorded under raised bed + 30 × 20 cm spacing (T 7 ) can be attributed to improved plant stand, enhanced growth attributes, and superior yield realization. Raised bed treatments consistently produced higher gross returns than flat bed treatments, highlighting the advantage of improved soil physical conditions and better resource utilization. Lower gross returns under broadcasting treatments were likely due to uneven plant distribution and reduced yield efficiency. (Gurjar et al.,2018; Pandey and Singh,2022 and Gavali et al.,2023 and Kankarwal et al.,2025) [9,19,6,12] .

Net Return

Net returns represent the difference between gross returns and the cost of cultivation. The highest net return was observed in T 7 (B 2 S 3 -Raised bed + 30×20 cm spacing) at Rs 51,700, followed by T 8 (B 2 S 4 -Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing) at Rs 39,600. Other treatments with high net returns include T 2 (B 1 S 2 -Flat bed + 30×30 cm spacing) with Rs 39,700 and T 3 (B 1 S 3 -Flat bed + 30×20 cm spacing) with Rs 38,700. The lowest net return was in T 1 (B 1 S 1 -Flat bed + Broadcasting) at Rs 13,800. Net return followed a trend similar to gross return but was further influenced by the cost of cultivation. The highest net return obtained in T 7 (raised bed + 30 × 20 cm spacing) indicates the economic superiority of this treatment Rao et al.,) [20] where increased yield outweighed the moderate cultivation cost. Treatments such as T 8 and T 2 also recorded higher net returns due to reasonable production levels combined with controlled costs. Conversely, the lowest net return under flat bed + broadcasting (T 1 ) resulted from poor yield performance despite its low cultivation cost, demonstrating that minimum investment does not necessarily translate into higher profitability. (Yadav and Singh, 2014; Keerthi et al., 2015; Vakeswaran et al., 2016; Veeramani, 2019) [23,13,21,22] .

Benefit-Cost (B:C) Ratio

The B:C ratio provides an indication of the profitability of the treatments. The treatment with the highest B:C ratio was T 7 (B 2 S 3 -Raised bed + 30×20 cm spacing) at 2.93, indicating that this treatment provided the highest return for the investment. Other treatments such as T 8 (B 2 S 4 -Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing) and T 5 (B 2 S 1 -Raised bed + Broadcasting) also performed well with B:C ratios of 2.55 and 2.36, respectively. In contrast, treatments with lower B:C ratios include T 1 (B 1 S 1 -Flat bed + Broadcasting), with a B:C ratio of 1.57. The benefit-cost ratio clearly demonstrated the economic feasibility of raised bed planting combined with optimum spacing. The highest B:C ratio under T 7 indicates maximum profitability per unit investment, reflecting a balanced combination of input cost and output value.

Raised bed treatments consistently exhibited higher B:C compared to flat bed methods, emphasizing their economic advantage. Lower B:C ratios under broadcasting treatments suggest inefficient utilization of resources, leading to suboptimal economic returns. These findings confirm that appropriate sowing method and spacing are critical determinants of profitability in greengram cultivation. (Yadav and Singh, 2014; Gohil et al., 2017; Kalsaria et al., 2017; Hangsing et al., 2020 and Gavali et al., 2023) [23,8,11,10,6] .

Conclusion

The economic assessment unequivocally revealed that sowing method and plant spacing exerted a significant influence on the cost of cultivation, returns, and profitability of greengram.

Although the flat bed + broadcasting treatment (T 1 ) recorded the lowest cost of cultivation, its inferior crop performance resulted in the lowest gross return, net return, and benefit-cost ratio, indicating poor economic efficiency. In contrast, raised bed methods, despite involving relatively moderate cultivation costs, consistently generated higher economic returns due to improved crop establishment, better growth, and enhanced yield attributes. Among the evaluated treatments, raised bed planting with 30 × 20 cm spacing (T 7 ) proved to be the most economically advantageous, registering the highest gross return (Rs 78,500 ha⁻¹), net return (Rs 51,700 ha⁻¹), and benefit-cost ratio (2.93). Other raised bed treatments, particularly wider spacings such as 30 × 30 cm (T 8 ), also demonstrated superior economic performance compared to flat bed sowing methods. Overall, the findings conclusively establish that raised bed sowing combined with optimum plant spacing, especially 30 × 20 cm, enhances resource-use efficiency and profitability, thereby offering a sustainable and economically viable production strategy for greengram cultivation under the agro-climatic conditions of the Malwa region.

References

1. Asewar BV, Gore AK, Pendke MS, Waskar DP, Gaikwad GK, Chary GR, et al. Broad bed and furrow technique-A climate smart technology for rainfed mungbean of Marathwada region. Journal of Agriculture Research and Technology. 2017;42(3):5-9.
2. Bansal KK, Sandhu KS, Bharti V, Saha A, Srivastava H, Nesar NAA, et al. Influence of varieties and spacings on growth, yield attributes and productivity of pigeonpea. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2024;58(6).
3. Bhattacharjee S. Breeding for biotic stress in mungbean through genomics-enabled strategies. In: Genomics-aided breeding strategies for biotic stress in grain legumes. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. p. 163-187.
4. Chaudhary AN, Vihol KJ, Chaudhary JH, Mor VB, Desai LJ. Influence of spacing and scheduling of irrigation on growth, yield and yield attributes and economics of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). Ecology, Environment and Conservation Journal. 2015;21:5357-5361.
5. Chavan RV, Zanzad RV, Gawande VV, Rathod PGT. Effects of plant growth regulators and micronutrients on quality parameters of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Plant Archives. 2025;25(1):216-222.
6. Gavali YD, Jaiswal V, Ghatak R, Gawali K. Effect of varieties and spacing on growth and yield of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(5):179-184.
7. Giri MD, SJ SN. Enhancing mungbean (Vigna mungo L.) yield, nutrient uptake and protein content: Impact of fertilizer levels, farmyard manure and biofertilizers. Journal of Food Legumes. 2024;37(4):396-403.
8. Wilczek]. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(9):2386-2390.
9. Gurjar R, Patel KV, Patel HP, Mistry CR. Effects of sowing dates and spacing on semi rabi greengram. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(5):2850-2853.
10. Hangsing N, Tzudir L, Singh AP. Effect of spacing and levels of phosphorus on the growth and yield of green gram (Vigna radiata L.) under rainfed condition of Nagaland. Agricultural Science Digest-A Research Journal. 2020;40(2):139-143.
11. Kalsaria RN, Vekariya PD, Hadiyal JG, Ichchhuda PK. Effect of spacing, fertility levels and bio-fertilizers on growth and yield of summer greengram (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2017;6(5):934-937.
12. Kankarwal A, Singh DP, Yadav KK, Choudhary J, Mahawer LN. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield attributes, and productivity of green gram (Vigna radiata L.). International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 2025;10(4):620026.
13. Keerthi MM, Babu R, Joseph M, Amutha R. Optimizing plant geometry and nutrient management for grain yield and economics in irrigated greengram. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2015;6(8):1144-1150.
14. Keisham M, Zimik L, Laishram B, Hajarimayum SS, Khumukcham PS, Yambem S, et al. Effect of varieties and spacing on yield of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] in Bishnupur district of Manipur. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(1):262-267.
15. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 2002;62(4):345-346.
16. Mehta S, Bharat R. Effect of integrated use of nano and non-nano fertilizers on nutrient use efficiency of wheat in irrigated subtropics of Jammu. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2017;8(6):2156-2158.
17. Mishra GP, Aski MS, Dikshit HK, Kohli M, Gupta S, Yadav PS, et al. Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] breeding. In: Fundamentals of legume breeding: A text for students and practitioners. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2025. p. 77-100.
18. Nair RM, Chaudhari S, Devi N, Shivanna A, Gowda A, Boddepalli VN, et al. Genetics, genomics, and breeding of black gram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2024;14:1273363.
19. Pandey A, Singh R. Effect of spacing on yield and economics of varieties of black gram (Vigna mungo L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2022;34(15):37-42.
20. Rao SS, Regar PL, Jangid BL, Chand K. Productivity and economics of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) and greengram (Phaseolus radiata L.) intercropping system as affected by row ratio and nitrogen in arid fringes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;79(2):101.
21. Vakeswaran V, Jerlin R, Selvaraju P, Bhaskaran M. Effect of time of sowing, spacing between plants and different fertilizer levels on green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) in seed yield attributing characters. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2016;8(57):3147-3150.
22. Veeramani P. Effect of plant spacing on the growth and yield of blackgram (Vigna mungo). Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 2019;8(1):101-104.
23. Yadav S, Singh BN. Effect of irrigation schedules and planting methods on yield, attributes and economics of green gram (Phaseolus radiatus L.) under rice-wheat-green gram cropping system. Plant Archives. 2014;14(1):521-523.