COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIC AND

INORGANIC SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN WARDHA

DISTRICT (M.S.)

DHUPE SHRUTI BHAVIKDASJI

B.Sc. (Agriculture)

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
AGRICULTURE
(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, LATUR.
VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPEETH,
PARBHANI – 431402 (M. S.) INDIA

2022
COMPARATIVE ECONOMICS OF ORGANIC AND
INORGANIC SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN WARDHA
DISTRICT (M.S.)

BY
DHUPE SHRUTI BHAVIKDASJI
B.Sc. (Agriculture)

A thesis submitted to
Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
AGRICULTURE
(AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, LATUR.
VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPEETH,
PARBHANI – 431402 (M. S.) INDIA

2022
Scanned by CamScanner
v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Ambitions in any one's mind are sky touching to achieve the glittering success and the hard
work is paramount. Along with one’s hard work the motivation and inspiration are also cordial, they
play outstanding role to be successful in one’s ambitions.
Inspiration is the best medicine which can make it possible to run for crippled one and it is
variable gold of mine to get the talented and inspiring willful guidance of my research guide Prof. S.
H. Kamble, Associate Professor, College of Agriculture , Latur and chairman of my advisory committee
for suggesting the research problem offering inspiration, scholastic and versatile guidance, constructive
enthusiasm during the course of investigation pain taking efforts taken for preparing manuscript and
final shaping of dissertation enabled me to complete the research project. I am indebted to him for my
achievement.
My heartful sincere and profound gratitude to members of my advisory committee, Dr. R. D.
Shelke, Associate Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Latur, Dr. D. D
Suradkar, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Extension Education, College of Agriculture, Latur and for
their valuable guidance and useful suggestions and continuous encouragement during the course of
investigation.
Goals meet when our efforts were co-ordinate with those of other. I express my deep gratitude
to versatile and dynamic person of our department Prof. S. H. Kamble, Associate Professor,
Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Latur, VNMKV, Parbhani for their
kjnd help and valuable co-operation during the course of investigation.
I express my gratitude to Dr. Indra Mani Sir, Hon. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. A. S. Dhawan, Ex
Vice-Chancellor, VNMKV, Parbhani, Dr. D. N. Gokhale, Director of Instruction and Dean, Dr. Syed
Ismail Syed Ibrahim, Associate Dean (PG), College of Agriculture, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani. I am also grateful for providing necessary facilities during course of
investigation to Dr. B.M. Thombre, Associate Dean and Principal, College of Agriculture, Latur.
It is seemone use the choicest work to measure the boundless love of the someone. I convey my
unbounded gratitude and sentiments for the latent love of my respected Father Shri. Bhavikdasji
Govindrao Dhupe and respected Mother Anita Bhavikdasji Dhupe who always remain in sun and
provides shadow in my life. Without my father's and mother's moral support I would not have
successful in this difficult Endeavour of post graduate studies.

vi
 CONTENTS

Sr.
Title/Particulars Page No.
No.
1. Declaration by the Candidate і

2. Certificate – I ⅱ

3. Certificate – II ⅲ

4. Plagiarism Clearance Certificate ⅳ

5. First Page of Plagiarism Report ⅴ

6. Acknowledgement ⅵ-ⅶ

7. List of Tables viii

8. List of Figures iⅹ

9. List of Plate x

10. List of Symbols & Abbreviations xi

11. Thesis Abstract ⅻ-ⅹiⅴ

12. Chapter -I: Introduction 1-5

13. Chapter - II: Review of Literature 6-24

14. Chapter - III: Materials and methods 25-35

15. Chapter - IV: Results and Discussion 36-67

16. Chapter -V: Summary and Conclusions 68-76

17. Literature Cited 77-80

18. Appendices 81-93

19. Curriculum Vitae 94

 LIST OF TABLES

Table
Title Page
No. No.
4.1 Growth rates of area, production and productivity of soybean 37

4.2 Socio-economic status of organic and inorganic soybean growers 42

4.3 Livestock position on organic and inorganic soybean farms 43

Per farm land use pattern of organic and inorganic soybean
4.4 44
farms

4.5 Cropping pattern of organic and inorganic soybean farms 45

Operation wise labour requirement in organic and inorganic
4.6 soybean cultivation 48
Per hectare use of physical input and output in organic and
4.7 inorganic soybean cultivation 50

4.8 Per hectare cost of cultivation of organic and inorganic soybean 52

4.9 Profitability of organic and inorganic soybean production 54

Per farm production, handling losses and marketed surplus of
4.10 organic and inorganic soybean 56
Per quintal marketing cost of inorganic and inorganic soybean
4.11 58
incurred by producer
Per quintal marketing cost of organic and inorganic soybean
4.12 incurred by village trader (₹/q) 60
Per quintal marketing cost of organic and inorganic soybean
4.13 incurred by wholesaler (₹/q) 61
Per quintal Marketing cost, Marketing margin and Price spread
4.14 of organic and inorganic soybean (₹/q) 63

4.15 Constraints faced in production of organic and inorganic soybean 65

Constraints faced in marketing of organic and inorganic soybean
4.16 growers 66
Suggestions given to overcome the constraints in production of
4.17 organic and inorganic soybean cultivation. 67

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

In
Figure Title between
No. page
no.
4.1 45-46
Cropping pattern of inorganic soybean growers
4.2 45-46
Cropping pattern of organic soybean growers
4.3 Per hectare cost of cultivation of inorganic and organic 51-52
Soybean.
4.4 53-54
Per hectare Profitability of inorganic and organic Soybean
4.5 Production, Handling losses and Marketed surplus 55-56
of inorganic and organic Soybean
4.6 Constraints faced by growers in production of inorganic and 65-66
organic soybean.
4.7 Constraints faced by growers in marketing of inorganic and 67-68
organic Soybean.

ix
 LIST OF PLATES

In between
Plate Title page no.
No.
3.1 Map of selected study area (Wardha district) 26-27
3.2 Data collection from organic soybean growers 26-27
3.3 Data collection from inorganic soybean growers 26-27
4.1 Glimp of soybean field 47-48
4.2 Pod formation of soybean crop 47-48
4.3 Dashparni ark 49-50
4.4 Inorganic fertilizers 49-50
4.5 Harvesting of soybean crop 53-54
4.6 Threshing of soybean crop 53-54
4.7 Market of organic soybean 55-56
4.8 Market of inorganic soybean 55-56

x
 List of symbols & abbreviations

% : Per cent
USA : United State of America
Mt : Million tonne
Mha : Million hectare
et al : Et alia (and others)
i.e. : that is
₹ : Rupee
; : Semicolon
CV : Coefficient of variation
Sq.km : Square kilometer
SD : Standard deviation
APMC : Agricultural Produce Market Committee
VNMKV : Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
Fig : Figure
ha : Hectare
₹/qt : Rupee per quintal
B:C Ratio : Benefited Cost Ratio
& : And
Kg : Kilogram
t : Tonne
gm : Gram
℃ : Degree Celsius
M.P. : Madhya pradesh
SC : Schedule caste
ST : Schedule tribe
M.S. : Maharashtra state
ME : Marketing efficiency
CAGR : Compound annual growth rate

xi
 THESIS ABSTRACT
1. Title of thesis : Comparative economics of organic and
inorganic Soybean production in Wardha
district (M.S.)
2. Name of the candidate : Dhupe Shruti Bhavikadasji

3. Name of the Research Guide : S. H. Kamble

4. Department : Agricultural Economics

5. College : College of Agriculture, Latur

6. Degree of awarded : M. Sc (Agriculture)

ABSTRACT

According to the data which is currently available, India ranks 1st in terms of the
overall number of producers and 8th in terms of the world's organic agricultural area as of
the year 2020. In 2016, Sikkim became the 1st state in the world to be entirely organic.
4.34 Mha of India's total land area are recognized under the National Programme for
Organic Production as of March 31, 2021. In India, 3.50 Mt (2020–21) of certified
organic products were produced. 0.8 Mt worth of exports were made in total between
(2020–21). Around INR 707849.52 millions was realized from the export of organic
foods. 0.89 Mt worth of exports were made in total between 2020 and 2021. Around INR
707849.52 million was realized from the export of organic foods.

Multistage sampling design was adopted for selection of the district, tehsils,
village and respondent farmers. At first stage, Wardha district was purposively selected..
At second stage, two tehsils were selected i.e., Hinganghat and Samudrapur. At third
stage, From each tehsils three villages were selected randomly. Thus, total 6 villages
from the two tehsils were selected. At fourth stage, 10 farmers from each village were
selected who grows soybean. Thus 60 organic and 60 inorganic soybean growers were
selected. Thus the total sample size was of 120 farmers.

xii
 The result revealed that the area, production and productivity of soybean were
found to be non-significant.

The majority of the organic soybean growers was from middle age adult group
(40-59 years) i.e., 51.67 per cent and that of inorganic soybean growers were from both
the middle age group (40-59 years) & senior age group (60 & above) i.e., 45 per cent of
each. Majority of organic soybean growers were under graduate i.e., 26.67 per cent and
that of inorganic soybean growers were having higher secondary level of education i.e.,
28.33 per cent. In case of organic soybean growers, 44 per cent growers had male
members in their family and 43.42 per cent were male as well as female in organic
soybean growers family. 57.36 per cent and 57.55 per cent were male family labour in
organic and inorganic soybean grower’s family respectively. 40 per cent and 60 per cent
organic and inorganic soybean growers were having land up to 2 ha. It is observed that
the majority of the organic and inorganic soybean growers were having lower middle
income i.e., 46.67 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. Majority of organic and
inorganic soybean growers were involved in the agriculture i.e., 70 per cent and 73.34 per
cent, respectively. Organic and inorganic soybean growers had highest number of poultry
birds 48.94 per cent and 38.99 per cent, respectively. the total land holding of organic and
inorganic soybean growers was 1.78 ha and 1.65 ha respectively. cropping intensity of
organic soybean and inorganic soybean was 187.46 per cent and 195.34 per cent,
respectively.

Per hectare cost of cultivation of organic and inorganic soybean was ₹ 110371.98
and ₹ 94710.7, respectively. In case of organic soybean, the share of cost A and cost B
was 66.31 per cent and 97.88 per cent, respectively. While in inorganic soybean, the
share of cost A and cost B was 74.69 per cent and 97.78 per cent, respectively.

Two most prevalent marketing channels were observed in the study area i.e.,
Channel-I (Producer-Wholesaler-Oil processor) and Channel II (Producer-Village trader-
Wholesaler-Oil processor). The total marketed surplus was 18.16 quintals and 18.87
quintals, respectively. In organic soybean, total cost incurred by producer in channel I
and channel II was ₹ 50.43 and ₹ 47.71 respectively. The total cost incurred by village

xiii
trader in channel II was ₹ 42.93. The total cost incurred by wholesaler in channel I was ₹
54.47 and in channel II it was ₹ 55.16. And in inorganic soybean, the total marketing cost
incurred by producer in channel I and channel II was ₹ 48.68 and ₹ 41.98 respectively.
Total cost incurred by village trader in channel II was ₹ 38.14. Total cost incurred by
wholesaler in channel I and channel II was ₹ 43.42 and ₹ 90.86, respectively. Price
spread was more in organic soybean than that of inorganic soybean in both the channels.

The constraints faced in production of organic and inorganic soybean were high
wages of labour, high cost of input, lack of knowledge about improved techniques, high
incidence of disease and pests and inadequate rainfall. And the constraints faced in
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean were price fluctuation, lack of storage
facility, involvement of middleman, malpractices exercised by middle man and distant
markets. The major constraint in production of organic and inorganic soybean was high
wages of labour i.e., 76.67 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively. And the major
constraint faced in marketing of organic and inorganic soybean was price fluctuation i.e.,
80 per cent and 81.67 per cent. And the suggestions like adoption of mechanisation,
adoption of IPM technique, fixation of MSP by government, selling of produce in group,
etc. were given to the farmers.
(Keywords: Growth rate, Socio-economic, Benefit cost ratio, Price spread, Market cost,
Market margin, Constraints, Suggestions)

xiv
 CHAPTER- I

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER-Ⅰ
INTRODUCTION
Early 20th century agricultural practises that were constantly altering led to the
development of the organic farming system. It is characterised by the use of organic
fertilisers like compost, green manure, and bone meal and emphasises methods like
crop rotation, companion planting, mixed cropping, biological pest control, and the
encouragement of insect predators. Because organic farming enhances soil health and
produces nutrient-dense food, it is recognised as necessary for human health. Due to
its diverse agroclimatic conditions, India has a great deal of potential to produce all
types of organic products.

The long-standing practise of organic farming is a bonus in several regions of

the nation. This is an opportunity for organic producers to enter the constantly
expanding domestic and international markets. Over half of the world's 70 million
hectares used for certified organic agriculture are in Australia. After 1985, organic
farming in India gained traction and is now a movement. According to the data that is
currently available, India ranks first in terms of the overall number of producers and
eighth in terms of the world's organic agricultural area as of the year 2020. In 2016,
Sikkim became the first state in the world to be entirely organic. (Source: FIBL &
IFOAM Year Book, 2020).

4.34 Mha of India's total land area are recognised under the National Program
for Organic Production as of March 31, 2021. (2020-21). This contains 1.68 Mha for
collecting wild harvests and 2.66 Mha of cultivable land. Madhya Pradesh has
certified the most land for organic farming among all the states, followed by
Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and
Karnataka. In India, 3.50 Mha (2020–21) of certified organic products were produced.
0.8 Mha worth of exports were made in total between 2020 and 21. Around INR
707849.52 million was realised from the export of organic foods. 0.89 Mha worth of
exports were made in total between 2020 and 2021. Around INR 707849.52 million
was realised from the export of organic foods. Exports of organic products to the
USA, EU, Canada, and Great Britain.

1
 In terms of realising export value Processed foods, including soy meal 57 per
cent take the top spot among products, followed by oilseeds 9 per cent, cereals and
millets 7 per cent, plantation crop products like tea and coffee 6 per cent and spices
and condiments 5 per cent. Other products include medicinal plants 5 per cent, dry
fruits 3 per cent, sugar 3 per cent, and soy meal 57 per cent and condiments.

Exports of organic goods go to countries including the United States, the

European Union, Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland, Ecuador,
Vietnam, Australia, and more.

The Leguminaceae family, which has its origins in East Asia, includes the
soybean (Glycine max). It is commonly planted for edible oil and bean production.
Soybeans are processed to produce meal and oil (see uses below) (for the animal feed
industry). A lesser portion is transformed into goods for human consumption, such as
soy milk, soy flour, soy protein, tofu, and several retail food items. Numerous
industrial (non-food) products also use soybeans. It can be grown in temperate,
subtropical, and tropical environments. India is the third-largest producer of oilseeds
in the world. With 14 per cent of the global oil seed acreage and 8 per cent of the
global oil seed production, India has one of the greatest vegetable oil economies in the
world.

In addition to boosting output and computation, agricultural marketing is

essential for advancing the space of economic expansion. an agricultural is marketing
system is crucial to economic growth in nations where resources are mostly related to
agriculture.

The soybean crop provides a significant amount of the edible oil that we need.
Additionally, livestock use it. Therefore, we must assess the soybean crop's nutritional
worth. Therefore, we must make an effort to avoid using potentially harmful
substances that have an impact on both humans and animals. And for our own well-
being and way of life, we must begin using things that are organically derived. The
goal of the current study is to determine the financial benefits of organic cultivation
over inorganic cultivation. It found that growing soybeans organically is more
profitable than growing them inorganically. Because organic produce is more
expensive than inorganic produce on the market. However, the limitation is that

2
farmers are less eager to adopt. They are hesitant to accept organic farming since they
are reliant only on their farming and are unaware of its significance to their way of
life. In addition, India has a large number of marginal farmers. Therefore, we can
reassure them regarding soy cultivation through results that are demonstrated.

Since soybean is a crop grown all over the world, both the local and global
markets have a significant impact on it. The marketing system for agricultural
products and crop production is important. significant impact on the nation's
economy. Agriculture Not only does marketing play a significant role in boosting
output in speeding the field of economics and computation development. The
cropping system gives priority to the soybean crop. Due to the state's more expensive
price as compared to other crops that compete. It is a productive crop with brief
moderate input requirements and duration. Other than It is very adaptable and offers a
variety of processed goods too which adds value to its original good.

World scenario of Soybean Crop

A total of 120.50 Mha produces 333.67 Mt of soy beans globally in 2019–20.

Brazil produces the most soya beans, with 114.27 Mt, followed by Argentina 55.26
Mt, and the United States 96.79 Mt. China 15.73 Mt and India 13.27 Mt accounts for
34.25, 29.01, 16,56, 4, and 3,98 per cent of global production. India is fourth in the
world With 11.34 ha (28.02 million acres), or 9.41 per cent of the world's land area,
and ranked fifth in terms of production with 11.22 Mt in 2019-20. According to the
first advance estimates 2021-22 of Ministry of Agriculture, Soybean production is
estimated at 127.20 lakh tonnes as compared to 128.97 lakh tonnes in 2020-21.

Indian scenario of Soybean crop

As of September 17, 2021, India's acreage planted with soy beans for the
2021–22 growing season was 121.76 lakh ha, up from 121.20 lakh ha in the 2020–21
growing season. With 55.84 lakh ha, Madhya Pradesh led the states, followed by
Maharashtra (46.01 lakh ha), Rajasthan, and (10.62 lakh ha), Karnataka (3.82 lakh
ha), Gujarat (2.24 lakh ha), and Telangana (1.51 lakh ha).

3
State scenario of Soybean crop

Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,

Chhattisgarh, and Gujarat are the principal soybean-producing states in India. With
Maharashtra, 4.124012 Mha of land are planted in soybeans, producing 4.82 Mt at a
productivity of 1170.13 kg/ha in 2019–20.
(Source-http:/Krushimaharashtra.gov.in/).

District Scenario of Soybean crop

The major soybean growing districts in Maharashtra are Nagpur, Wardha,

Satara, Amravati, Chandrapur, Buldhana Parbhani and Latur. In 2019–20, the Wardha
district will cover 0.113028 Mha, produce 0.1474.10 Mt, and produce 1304.19 kg/ha.
In the Vidarbha area, soybean is gradually replacing crops like cotton, sorghum,
pigeon pea, etc. The growing demand for soybeans as a substitute crop has been one
of the most important economic motivations for moving land from these crops to its
production and price trends for the soy crop.
(Source-http:/Krushimaharashtra.gov.in/).

Role of Maharashtra Government in Organic Farming

Maharashtra government has set up a mission for promoting organic

agriculture in the state by passing a government resolution on 16 October 2018 under
the state sponsored scheme of organic farming. The mission has been names as Dr.
Panjabrao Deshmukh Organic Farming Mission. Maharashtra government set up an
OCA (Organic Certification Agency) to promote organic farming practices. The area
under organic cultivation in Maharashtra is 8-10 lakh ha. Area registered for
certification is 0.42 lakh ha. There are 4 million organic farmers in Maharashtra.

Objectives :

1. To estimate growth rates of area, production, productivity of soybean in

Wardha district of Maharashtra.
2. To study socio-economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean
production.
3. To estimate comparative costs, returns and profitability in the production of
organic and inorganic soybean.

4
 4. To workout comparative marketing cost, marketing margins and price spread
in the marketing of organic and inorganic soybean.
5. To document constraints and suggestions therein in the production and
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean production.

Hypothesis :

Organic soybean production is profitable than inorganic soybean production in

study area.

Scope :

1. There is an increasing awareness about the food safety, soil and environment
safety among the farmers which can be balanced with the organic farming.
2. The study is an attempt to analyze cost, growth rates, constraints, advantages,
of organic farming over inorganic farming.
3. The study will help to create healthy society.

Limitations:

1. The result of the study is based on only one agriculture year i.e,2021-22.
2. As the farmers didn't maintain records properly they had to give information
by memory recall.

5
 CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CHAPTER-Ⅱ
REVIEWS OF LITERATURE
Reviews of literature forms an integral part of research work. Review of
literature published elsewhere related to the subject under study is always useful to
the investigator to outline the problem of research, formulate objectives, choose
suitable methodology and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. It also provides
general orientation about the topic of investigation by creating an insight and sense of
integration about the subject as whole. The review of literature is grouped under the
following heads:

2.1 Growth rate of area, production and productivity of soybean.

2.2 Socio economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean

production.
2.3 Comparative costs, returns and profitability in the production of organic
and inorganic soybean.
2.4 Comparative marketing costs, returns and price spread in the marketing of
organic and inorganic soybean.
2.5 Constraints and suggestions therein in the production and marketing of
organic and inorganic soybean production.

2.1. Growth rate of area, production and productivity of soybean.

Agarwal et al. (2014) measured the growth performance, instability and
decomposition approach in area, production and productivity of soybean crop in
Madhya Pradesh based on secondary data during 1996-97 to 2012-13. The tools used
for analysis were compound growth trend, instability indices and decomposition
analysis. Study revealed that the area, production and productivity of soybean
registered positive and significant growth trend during the study period. The
Instability Index suggested that there was highest inter-annual fluctuation in soybean
production followed by variation in productivity and area during study period. Further
decomposition analysis employed to determine the contribution of different
components to the growth rate. The decomposition analysis suggested that area was
one of the important factors in overall growth of soybean production followed by
interaction effect. The productivity contribution to total soybean production in state
was very low.

6
 Datarkar et al. (2016) analysed the regional growth rates in area, production
and productivity of soybean in Maharashtra State based on secondary data during
Period I- 1990-91 to 2001-02, Period II- 2002-03 to 2012-13 and overall period of
1990-91 to 2012-13. The growth was examined by compound growth function of the
non-linear form. The study concludes that area, production and productivity of
soybean had increased during the study period i.e., 13.23 per cent, 14.15 per cent and
2.09 per cent per annum, respectively. The increase in production of soybean in
Maharashtra, during the period-I was relatively more as compared to period-I and
overall period. It is observed that farmers in Maharashtra state are gradually switching
over to soybean from cotton, jowar, tur and other traditional crops due to higher yield
and remunerative price for soybean.
Kumar et al. (2017) studied growth and instability in area, production, and
productivity of Cassava (Manihot esculenta) in Kerala. For the analysis purpose, the
secondary data is used from 1991-2016. The growth was examined by compound
annual growth rate. The share of cassava area in Kerala to all India area declined from
85.57 to 45.5 per cent in 2001-02. The estimated trends in the area, production, and
productivity of cassava, using semi log function revealed that there was a significant
decline in an area with a compound annual growth rate of 1.37 per cent, the non-
significant decline in production by -0.02 per cent and a significant increase in
productivity by 1.3 per cent. Cuddy-Della Valle index provides the best estimates and
instability was found to be more in productivity 4.04 per cent.
Mishra (2017) analysed the trends in area, production and productivity of
groundnut in India. For the analysis purpose, the secondary data is used from 1964-65
to 2013-14 which is further divided into three sub-periods. The growth was examined
by compound annual growth rate. During the period 1964-65 to 2013-14 the actual
area showed a growth rate of -0.499 per cent, actual production showed a growth rate
of 0.702 per cent and the actual productivity showed a growth rate of 0.803 per cent.
In the first phase during the period 1964-65 to 1972-73 area grew at -1.488 per cent.
However, in the second phase during the period 1972-73 to 1989-90 area grew at
0.803 per cent. Moreover, third phase during the period 1989-90 to 2013-14 again
shows a declining trend exhibiting the growth rate of -1.882. In the first phase during
the period 1964-65 to 1969-70 production grew at -1.980 per cent. However, in the
second phase during the period 1969-70 to 1993-94 production grew at 1.92 per cent.

7
Moreover, Third phase during the period 1993-94 to 2007-08 again showed a
declining trend exhibiting the growth rate of -0.598.
Gayathri (2018) estimated the trend of an area, production and yield of
Groundnut for all India during the year 2000-01 to 2015-16 based on secondary data.
The growth was examined by compound growth rate. The area under groundnut was
6.56 Mha during 2000-01 which was declined to 4.56 Mha in 2015-16. The
production of groundnut is fluctuating during the study period. The yield has
increased from 977 kg/ha in 2000-01 to 1486 kg/ha in 2015-16. The compound
growth rate for groundnut area is negative with -2.22 per cent on the other hand
groundnut production 1 per cent as well as yield 3.26 per cent shows positive value.
The compound growth rate of the area, production, and yield during the 2000-01 to
2015-16 reveals that the groundnut area is negative whereas production and yield
shows a positive trend value.
Kumar et al. (2019) analysed the growth and instability in terms of area,
production and productivity of soybean crop in India. For the analysis purpose, the
secondary data is used from 1996-97 to 2015-16 which is further divided into four
sub-periods, had examine. The growth was examined by compound annual growth
rate and contribution of area and productivity towards output growth by
decomposition analysis. The study concludes that the relative changes in area,
production and productivity under soybean were not uniform as compared to the base
year. Maximum relative change in the area was found to be 15.51 per cent in the year
2004-05 and maximum decrease -6.88 per cent in the year 2014-15, whereas
maximum increase in production and productivity were found to be 67.98 and 56.56
per cent, respectively in the year 2003-04, and maximum decrease in the production
and productivity were 25.42 and 27.68 per cent, respectively in the year 2000-01. The
overall compound growth rate of area and production of soybean were found to be
positive and significant at the 1 per cent level of significance and productivity found
positive but not significant during 1996-97 to 2015-16. In concern to the instability
was found to be low in case of area under soybean as compared to production and
productivity over the study period. The area effect was found to be 100.75 per cent,
whereas yield and interaction effect were 0.41 and 0.34 per cent during study period.
The degree of relationship between area and production of soybean crop was
measured over the period is 0.83 which is significant at 1 per cent level of
significance.

8
 Tambe et al. (2021) analysed the growth and instability in terms of area,
production and productivity of soybean in Maharashtra. For the analysis purpose, the
secondary data is used from 1986-87 to 2017-18 which is further divided into four sub
periods as period I (1987-88 to 1996-97), period II (1997-98 to 006-07), period III
(2007-08 to 2017-18) and overall period (1987-88 to 2017-18). The growth was
examined by compound annual growth rate and instability analysis. The study
revealed that the changes in area, production and productivity of soybean can be seen
for overall Maharashtra state. During period I, the area, production and productivity
has increased significantly by 30.12, 45.57 and 11.87 per cent, respectively. The area
was positively significant in period II, period III and overall period i.e. 11.18 per cent,
6.03 per cent and 12.98 per cent, respectively while production were non significant
in period II and period III and significant in overall period. The productivity was non-
significant in period II, period III and overall period. Among the different periods the
growth in area, production and productivity was not satisfactory in third period (2007-
08 to 2017-18). It was mainly due to the irratic and irregular rainfall, dry spells and
drought years during the period 2010-11 to 2017-18.
Pathrikar et al. (2022) measured the growth rates in area, production and
productivity of soybean in Marathwada region of Maharashtra state based on the
secondary data during period of 2000-01 to 2019-20. The tool used for analysis were
compound growth function of the linear trend equation and CDVI. The area,
production and productivity of soybean were positively significant at the rate of
90.59, 94.19 and 0.20 per cent and 13.46, 13.45 and negative productivity i.e.- 0.36
per cent per annum, respectively. The CDVI (Cuddy and Della Variability Index) for
area, production and productivity of soybean of Maharashtra was 14.22, 45.87 and
35.70, for overall period respectively. The highest increasing trend in area was
recorded in Latur district i.e., 2391.10 ha followed by Nanded district i.e., 1927.10 ha.
The average area of soybean in the Marathwada region was 10021.72 ha and in case
of Maharashtra state, it was 28820.05 ha. The highest increasing trend in production
was recorded in Latur district i.e., 2961.19 qtl, followed by Nanded district i.e.,
1897.67 qtl. The average production of soybean in the Marathwada region was
12413.71 qtl and in the case of Maharashtra state, it was 31593.10 qtl. The highest
increasing trend in productivity was recorded in Hingoli district i.e., 1209.00 kg/ha,
followed by Latur district i.e., 1136.10 kg/ha. The average productivity of soybean in

9
the Marathwada region was 1040.56 kg/ha and in the case of Maharashtra state, it was
1120.90 kg/ha.

2.2. Socio-economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean production.

Roy et al. (2013) studied Socio economic status of Hill farmers: An
Exploration from Almora district of Uttarakhand found that 58 per cent of the
respondents were in SC category and rests were in unreserved category. The average
age of the respondents was 42 years and most 63.33 per cent were having medium
education level. Agriculture was the sole occupation of 25 percent farmers whereas
others had subsidiary occupations like labour, shop keeping, driving etc. Majority
78.34 per cent were found having medium level of social participation. The average
landholding was 0.40 ha and most 66.67 per cent were having a medium herd size of
goat and sheep. The respondents had an average farming experience of 19 years. Most
of the farmers had medium levels of annual income 55 per cent and material
possession 60 per cent. In totality, the study revealed that 26.67 per cent of farmers
belonged to low socio- economic category, 55 per cent of farmers belonged to
medium socio economic category and 18.33 per cent farmers belonged to high socio
economic category.
Islam et al. (2014) studied Socio-economic conditions of the fish farmers in
Jessore, Bangladesh from september to december 2013 with sample of 100 fisherman.
Respondents were selected by stratified random sampling method and interview. It
was observed that the average members of single family were 5-6 people per
household. Single families were much more 62 per cent than joint families. Most of
the fish farmers were Muslims 92 per cent and few of them were Hindus 8 per cent. It
was found that the number of childrens going to school were 2-3 per house. There
were 4 per cent graduate, 8 per cent H.S.C., 27 per cent S.S.C., 26 per cent had passed
class 6-10, 25 per cent had passed class 1-5. Full kaccha houses were 17 per cent,
semi pucca 40 per cent and pucca 43 per cent. Regarding health and sanitation, 31 per
cent fishermen reported to suffer from gastric and 17 per cent suffered from fever. It
was observed that 55 per cent and 30 per cent of the people used safety toilet and
sanitary latrine respectively. And 15 per cent used unhygienic kaccha latrine. In the
surveyed area, 51 per cent farmers was involved solely in fish farming, 22 per cent in
fish farming with agriculture, 27 per cent in fish farming with other profession.

10
 Prajapathi et al. (2016) analysed Socio-economic status of livestock farmers
Navasari district of South Gujarat with 300 respondents from that 200 respondents
were from rural area and 100 from urban area. It was observed that in the rural areas,
85 per cent of the respondents belonged to nuclear family and 15 per cent to joint
family whereas in urban area 68 per cent and 32 per cent of the respondents belonged
to joint and nuclear type of family respectively. In the rural areas 53.5, 42 and 4.5 per
cent of dairy animal owners were from middle, old and young age group category
while in urban areas the proportion of the dairy animal owners in the above mentioned
age group was 62, 23 and 15 per cent, respectively. It is observed that in rural area,
small and large family size was observed in 59.5 and 40.5 per cent of the respondents
whereas it was found to be 59 and 41 per cent in urban areas, respectively. In rural
area 11, 29.5, 52.5 and 7 per cent of the dairy farmers were illiterate, functional
literate, educated up to secondary and graduate and above level while it was 11, 36,
47 and 6 per cent in urban area, respectively.
Jamanal and Syed (2017) studied Socio-economic characteristics of growers in
Dharwad district of Karnataka state during the year 2013- 14 with sample of 150
respondents. It was observed from the study that 54.00 per cent of the soybean
farmers were middle aged, followed by 26.66 per cent of the farmers studied up to
high school level, 50.66 per cent of the farmers belonged to semi-medium land
holding category and 45.33 per cent of the soybean growers had medium level of
extension contact. Further it also observed that 63 per cent of the farmers belonged to
medium mass media participation category followed by 54.66 per cent of the
respondents belonged to the category of medium innovativeness, 45.33 per cent of the
respondents had medium level of scientific orientation and 37.33 per cent of the
farmers belong to semi-medium soybean crop land holding category.
Perke et al. (2018) analysed Socio-economic characteristics of selected
soybean growers in Hingoli district of Maharashtra during the year 2014-15 with
sample size of 120 farmers. During study soybean growers were selected randomly
through Multistage Sampling procedure. The result revealed that majority of soybean
growers were in 30 to 45 years age group 52.50 per cent, followed by up to 30 years
age group 17.50 per cent and above 45 years age group 30.00 per cent. Educational
status revealed that more than half sample were attended high school 72.50 per cent.,
12.50 per cent sample were non-literate whereas 15 per cent sample was attended
college. Family size of farmers composed of 5.0 members of whom 2.04 were male,

11
1.66 were female and 1.30 were children. The share of male, female and children
were 40.80 per cent, 33.20 per cent and 26 per cent, respectively. The occupation
revealed that the majority of farm families 67.50 per cent had primary occupation
agriculture as a main source of occupation while 20 per cent families were engaged in
secondary occupation and remaining 12.50 per cent were engaged in tertiary
occupation service. The land holding up to 2 ha were 60 per cent, 2 to 4 ha were 30
per cent while 4 ha and above were 10 per cent.
Thakur et al. (2018) studied an Assessment of socio-economic status of
agroforestry farmers in Giridih district, Jharkhand. During study 160 farmers were
selected through multistage sampling procedure. The result revealed that male
population was 63.75 per cent followed by female population was 36.25 per cent.
Most of the families were from OBC caste 38.13 per cent followed by general 29.37
per cent; And maximum respondents were from nuclear family 94.37 per cent
followed by joint family 5.62 per cent; Age profile of respondents were (20-30 years)
53.75 per cent followed by (31-40 years) 21.87 per cent; Ethnic group & religion were
Hindu 63.12 per cent followed by Christian 20.62 per cent; higher literacy 28.75 per
cent followed by primary literacy 21.13 per cent. It is observed that in study area land
use practices (ha) by respondents were 100 per cent farmers in agriculture and 76.88
per cent in agroforestry, whereas horticulture 42.49 per cent and 22.50 per cent
farmers grow bamboo on their land.
Rathod et al. (2020) studied Socio-economic status of cabbage growers in
Khandwa district of Madhya Pradesh during the year 2016-17 with sample size of 60
farmers. During study multistage random sampling technique was adopted for data
collection and stratified random sample procedure was adopted for selection of
villages and farmers. The result revealed that most of the cabbage growers were
literate 83.34 per cent. 30 per cent growers had an education up to primary level
followed by 28.33 per cent middle school, 18.33 per cent higher secondary standard
and 6.67 per cent college level. And 16.66 per cent of the growers were illiterate. The
average size of land holding of selected farmers was 1.35 ha, 3.2 ha and 6.6 ha. The
average net sown area of small, medium and large size farm was 1.28, 3.04 and 6.27
ha respectively. The highest 93.33 per cent farmers were belong to OBC category and
6.67 per cent were in General category. The cropping pattern of the selected farmers
revealed that Soybean was the most preferred crop of the kharif season 38.44 per cent
followed by Maize 22.09 per cent, Cotton 16.84 per cent, Red gram 13.02 per cent

12
and Pea 10.007 per cent & similarly, in rabi season Wheat occupied the major portion
45.98 per cent followed by Cauliflower 24.64 per cent, Cabbage 15.20 per cent and
Onion 14.18 per cent and Moong & Khira crop during summer season.
Balasubramanyam et al. (2020) studied Socio economic status of Pig farmers
in Tamil Nadu with 50 pig farmers using interview schedule. The result revealed that
67 per cent of the piggery farmers lived in nuclear type family followed by joint
family 33 per cent. More than half 54 per cent farmers belonged to medium family
size category followed by small 40 per cent and large family size 6 per cent. They
possess primary 40 per cent to high school 36 per cent, illiterate 10 per cent and
graduates 14 per cent education level. More than half 58 per cent of the pig farmers
used iron sheets for housing followed by one-third 32 per cent of farmers with cement
asbestos sheets for housing and only 10 per cent of the farmers used coconut leaf as
roof materials.
Kumar et al. (2022) studied Socio-Economic analysis of soybean growers with
reference to cost of cultivation and income in Rajnandgaon district of Chhattisgarh
state during the year 2017-18 with sample of 120 respondents. The result revealed that
majority of the respondents 57.50 per cent were found in the middle-aged (46 to 60
years) group. The highest respondents 31.67 per cent were found to be primary school
educated. There was another backward class of 73.33 per cent of respondents. 71.67
per cent of respondents were family members of medium size (6 to 8 members) and
participated in more than two organizations. Soybean cultivation experience is 11-20
years of respondents 48.33 per cent. Material mobile possession 100 per cent followed
by cycle / motor 82.50 per cent. The maximum respondents 34.17 per cent had small
farmers, Highest respondents 47.50 per cent had an irrigation canal. It was found that
agriculture was their main occupation, The maximum respondents 40.83 per cent had
₹ 50,001 to Rs. 1,00,000 of annual income.

2.3. Comparative costs, returns and profitability in the production of organic

and inorganic soybean.
Parshuramkar et al. (2014) studied Economics of production of 90 paddy
growers in Gondia district of Maharastra during the year 2010-11. The selected
farmers were distributed according to size of land holding i.e. small, medium and
large farmers. The data were analysed by simple tabular method and standard cost
concept. The result revealed that the total cost ‘C’ was worked out to be ₹ 38,214.30,

13
out of which Cost ‘A’ shared for ₹ 25,814.25 and cost ‘B’ ₹ 33,782.64. The net return
obtained on an overall basis was ₹ 5061.47. The highest net return obtained from the
large farmers i.e., ₹ 6505.4 followed by medium farmers i.e., ₹ 5363.32 and ₹ 3923.87
in small farmers. The rental value of land worked out 18.26 per cent and depreciation
was 1.79 per cent. The yield obtained was 32.60 qtl of main produce and by produce
46.98 qtl. As a result, the B:C ratio was 1:1.15, whereas per quintal cost of production
was worked out to ₹ 1016.96.
Jawanjal et al. (2015) studied Cost, returns and profitability in sugarcane
cultivation in Konkan region (MS). The cost of cultivation was analysed by using
standard cost concept. The result revealed that in suru sugarcane group per hectare
cost ‘A’ was ₹ 75,423, cost ‘B’ was ₹ 1,15,600 and cost ‘C’ was ₹ 1,43,664 while in
ratoon sugarcane group per hectare cost ‘A’ was ₹ 48,228, cost ‘B’ was ₹ 71,693and
cost ‘C’ was ₹ 88,873, respectively. The net returns in suru sugarcane group were ₹
1,63,286, ₹ 1,23,109 and ₹ 95,045 at cost ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, respectively while in
ratoon sugarcane group net returns were ₹ 91,339, ₹ 67,874 and ₹ 50,694 at cost ‘A’,
‘B’ and ‘C’, respectively. In suru sugarcane group per hectare main produce was
102.45 tonne and by produce was 20.49 tonne while in ratoon sugarcane group main
produce was 59.90 tonne and by produce was 11.98 tonne. The per hectare
profitability of suru and ratoon sugarcane crop indicated that cultivation of both type
of sugarcane were profitable at all the levels of cost. Indicating B:C ratio of suru
sugarcane 1.66 and ratoon sugarcane 1.57.
Pawar (2016) studied Cost, returns and profitability of 120 Groundnut
cultivators in Raigad district of konkan region (M.S.). During study the farmers were
grouped into small, medium, large and at overall level. The concept used for analysis
of data was standard cost concept. The result revealed that the per hectare cost of
cultivation of groundnut at overall level was ₹ 85855.39 whereas it was ₹ 85549.93, ₹
86013.96 and ₹ 88010.68 in small, medium and large group, respectively. At the
overall level, out of the total cost of cultivation, cost ‘A’ and cost ‘B’ shared 44.37 per
cent and 66.40 per cent respectively. The per hectare gross returns in small, medium
and large group was ₹ 101858.30, ₹ 106925.10 and ₹ 100218.40 respectively while it
was ₹ 102743.00 at overall level. The cost per quintal was ₹ 4170.66, ₹ 3990.44 and ₹
4375.50 in case of small, medium and large groups respectively, while it was ₹
4152.76 at overall level. The B:C ratio was 1.19 for small group, 1.24 for medium
group and 1.14 for large group, while it was 1.20 at overall level. The productivity of

14
groundnut was more for medium group (20.51qtl) as compared to small (19.43 qtl)
and large (19.24 qtl) size group. Groundnut cultivation in the study area was
profitable.
Perke et al. (2017) studied cost, returns and profitability of 120 soybean
growers in Hingoli district of Maharashtra and estimated that per hectare total cost
with regards to soybean was ₹ 35262.14 while cost-A was ₹ 23036.28 and cost-B was
₹ 31672.14 Per cent share of cost-A was 65.32 per cent while cost-B was 89.81 per
cent. It was clear that farm business income, family labour income and net profit were
₹ 28583.72., ₹ 19947.86 and ₹ 16357.86 for soybean farm, respectively. Per quintal
cost of production ₹ 2364.03with output-input ratio of 1.46 indicating that soybean is
profitable enterprise.
Janjire et al. (2018) examined Costs, returns and profitability of 64 sugarcane
cultivators with drip and surface irrigation during the year 2015-16 in Pune district of
Maharashtra. The techniques like tabular analysis and different concepts were used
for analysis. The result revealed that cost C was ₹ 193177.47 in which contribution of
cost A and cost B were ₹ 115931.57 and ₹ 182593.47 for drip and cost C was ₹
164498.02 in which contribution of cost A and cost B were ₹ 106947.25 and ₹
1152184.02 for surface, respectively. Returns from main produce were higher ₹
360888.00 in drip sugarcane farm as compared with ₹ 242924 on surface sugarcane
farm. The returns from by produce were higher ₹ 15402 in drip farms as compared
with ₹ 11764 in surface sugarcane farms. Per tonne cost of sugarcane production was
higher ₹ 2200 on surface sugarcane farms, while that was ₹ 1083.73 in drip sugarcane
farms. Overall study concludes that drip sugarcane was higher profitable than surface.
Nannaware et al. (2018) studied economics of production of 120 soybean
growers in Wardha district during the year 2014-15. During study the selected farmers
were classified as small (up to 2 ha), medium (2.01 ha to 4.00 ha) and large (4.0 ha to
above) on the basis of size holding. The result revealed that Per hectare cost of
cultivation of low adopter at cost' A', 'B' and 'C' were ₹ 17255.11, ₹ 27490.89 and ₹
29305.39 respectively. And of medium adopter at cost 'A', cost 'B' and cost 'c' were ₹
19220.63, ₹ 26886.20 and ₹ 27918.44. And of high adopter at cost 'A', cost 'B' and
cost 'c' were ₹ 21505.82, ₹ 31398.44 and ₹ 32061.48. And of overall at cost 'A', cost
'B' and cost 'c' were ₹ 19327.14, ₹ 28591.79 and ₹ 29761.71. At overall level the B:C
ratio at cost 'C' was 1:1.48.

15
 Shrote et al. (2018) studied economics of production of 36 pomegranate
growers in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra during the year 2016-17. During
study the cost concepts were used for analysis of data. The result revealed that per
hectare cost of cultivation of pomegranate (i.e., Cost C) ₹ 308984.86 (100 %). The
rental value of land was ₹ 76984.12 (24.91%) which was highest as compared to
remaining costs. In total cost of cultivation, cost A was ₹ 177601.12 (57.47%) and
cost B ₹ 289829.22 (93.80%). The B:C ratio was 1.82 in pomegranate production and
per quintal cost of production was ₹ 2196.52.
Meshram et al. (2018) studied Economics of production of 120 Wheat growers
in Wardha district during the year 2013-14. During study the selected 120 farmers
were classified as small (up to 2 ha), medium (2.01 ha to 4.00 ha) and large (4.0 ha to
above) on the basis of size holding. The study revealed that Per hectare cost of
cultivation of low adopter at cost ‘A’, cost ‘B’ and cost ‘C’ were ₹ 23200.19, ₹
31820.44 and ₹ 34624.67 respectively. And of medium adopter at cost ‘A’, cost ‘B’
and cost ‘C’ were ₹ 25758.81, ₹ 34974.44 and ₹ 42680 respectively. And of high
adopter at cost ‘A’, cost ‘B’ and cost ‘C’ were ₹ 29185.95, ₹ 38707.18 and ₹
43922.71 respectively. And of overall adopter at cost ‘A’, cost ‘B’ and cost ‘C’ were
₹ 27312.29, ₹ 35611.35 and ₹ 39700.51 respectively. and gross return was ₹
52849.50. At overall level the B:C ratio at cost ‘C’ was 1.31.
Bhong et al. (2019) investigated cost, returns and profitability of Ber
production in Solapur district of Maharashtra during the year 2017-2018. From 96 ber
growers the result revealed that per hectare cost of cultivation was ₹ 154772.67 in
which Cost-A consist (38.01%) and Cost-B (83.54%) i.e., ₹ 58839.21 and ₹
129298.72 respectively. Expenditure on rental value of land ranks first ₹ 52677.86
i.e., (34.03%).
Bhosale et al. (2020) studied economics of Production of 120 Turmeric
growers in Satara District (M.S.) during the year 2018-19. The 120 growers were
categorised as small, medium, large and at overall level. The result revealed that the
total cost of cultivation (cost ‘C’) of turmeric were ₹ 469552, ₹ 510910 and ₹ 525232
in small, medium and large group, respectively. At the overall level, it was ₹ 509156.
The net profit at cost ‘C’ were ₹ 61559, ₹ 116015, ₹ 133161 and ₹ 121536 in small,
medium, large and at overall level group respectively. The B:C ratio on small,
medium, large size farm and at overall level were 1.13, 1.23, 1.25, and 1.24

16
respectively. The overall study concludes that cultivation of turmeric crop was
economically beneficial.

2.4. Comparative marketing cost, marketing returns and price spread in the
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean.
Wankhade et al. (2010) studied Marketing of Soybean in Amravati district of
Maharashtra with 120 Soybean growers. It is observed from the study that one most
important marketing channel was identified for soybean crop i.e., Producer –
Wholesaler –Processor– Retailer–Consumer. It was observed that total marketing cost
incurred by different functionaries in consumer price was to the extent of 9.98 per
cent in which the share of producer, wholesaler, processor and retailer accounted for
3.08 per cent, 4.04 per cent, 1.75 per cent and 1.11 per cent respectively. And the
producers share in consumer price was 72.30 per cent.
Chavhal (2014) estimated marketing cost, marketing margin and price spread
in soybean. The study was conducted in the Parbhani market for surveying of 30
market intermediaries. Three marketing channel were noticed in sale of soybean viz.,
Producer-Village merchant-Wholesaler-Oil processor (channel-I), Producer-
Wholesaler- Oil processor (channel-II), Producer-Oil processor (channel-III). It was
observed that per quintal marketing cost was higher in channel-I i.e. ₹ 169.69
followed by ₹ 138.65 in channel-II and ₹ 38.80 in channel-III, respectively.
Producer’s share in consumer’s rupee was maximum in channel-III 98.93 per cent
while minimum in channel-I 83.14 per cent.
Solanki et al. (2014) studied economics of soybean cultivation and its
marketing pattern in Malwa plateau of Madhya Pradesh with 60 soybean growers.
Four marketing channels were observed in marketing of soybean Viz, Channel – I i.e.,
Producer-Retailer-Consumer, Channel –II i.e., Producer-Processer-Oil retailer-Oil
consumer, Channel–III i.e., Producer-Village merchant-Processer-Oil retailer-Oil
consumer, Channel–IV i.e., Producer-Wholesaler-Retailer-Consumer. The result
revealed that middleman’s margin was highest in Channel III being 821.80 per qtl
followed by Channel IV, II and I. The producer’s share in consumer’s rupee was
highest in Channel - I is 73.17 per cent followed by Channels IV, II and III. The
marketing efficiency of marketing Channels I, II, III and IV was 2.73, 1.95, 1.86 and
2.00 per cent respectively. The total marketing charges paid by the producer and

17
retailer of soybean were 63.00 and 156.40 per qtl in Channel - I. The marketing
Channels II and III were complicated as compared to the Channels I and IV.
Hazari and Khobarkar (2015) studied Production and marketing of Soybean in
Akola district of Maharashtra with 90 soybean growers during 2013-14. It is observed
from the study that two marketing channels were found in marketing of soybean crop
Viz, Channel-I i.e., Farmer –Wholesaler - Processor, Channel -II i.e., Farmer-
Commission agent – Wholesaler – Processor. It was observed that the marketing cost
has been found ₹ 195.97 per qtl at channel - I. The marketing cost has been found to
be higher by ₹ 15 per qtl when soybean was sold through Channel-II. And of the
consumer rupee, the commission agent received 5.86 per cent share, processor
received 5.35 per cent share and wholesaler received 4.43 per cent share. The
producer`s share in consumer‘s rupee in the sale of soybean directly in the market was
higher i.e. 82.58 per cent in Channel- I as compared to 77.30 per cent in Channel- II.
Kausadikar et al. (2018) studied marketing of soybean in Parbhani district
with 120 soybean growers. It is observed from the study that three marketing channels
were found in the marketing of soybean crop Viz, Channel-I- Producer- Village
trader- Wholesaler- Oil processor (consumer), Channel-II- Producer- Wholesaler- Oil
Processor (consumer), Channel-III – Producer- oil processor (consumer). Maximum
quantity of soybean was sold through channel- I. It was observed that the producer
share in consumer rupee was 87.06 per cent.
Yesdhanulla and Aparna (2018) studied Marketing channels and price spread
of tomato in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh with 120 tomato growers during the
year 2015-16. It is observed from the study that two marketing channels were
identified Viz, Channel - I i.e., Producer -Wholesaler- Retailer- Consumer, Channel –
II i.e., Producer-Local wholesaler -Distant Wholesaler-Retailer-Consumer. Net price
received by producer was ₹ 725.95 in channel-I and ₹ 717.80 in channel-II. Total
marketing costs in consumer’s rupee was 23.31 per cent and 27.53 per cent in
channel-I and Channel-II and percentage share of gross marketing margin in
consumers rupee was 29.85 per cent and 32.58 per cent in channel-I and channel-II
respectively. The producers share in consumer’s rupee was highest in channel-I 46.84
per cent and the lowest was in channel-I 39.88 per cent. Marketing efficiency ratio
was found to be highest in channel-I.

18
 Singh et al. (2019) Studied Marketing cost and efficiency of Arhar in
Chhindwara district of Madhya Pradesh, India with 50 arhar growers. During study
three types of marketing channels of arhar were used by farmers. Viz, Channel-I:
Producer- Miller- Retailer-Consumer. Channel-II: Producer- Wholesaler- Miller-
Retailer- Consumer. Channel-III: Producer- Commission agent- Wholesaler- Miller
Retailer- Consumer. In marketing channel-I, producers’ share in consumer rupee was
78.31 per cent. In marketing channel-II, it was 75.24 per cent, in marketing channel-
III, it was 70.24 per cent. Per quintal price spread in marketing of arhar was ₹ 1864.5,
₹ 2200.5 and ₹ 2767.5 in channel-I, channel-II and channel-III respectively. The
marketing efficiency was 3.61, 3.03 and 2.31 per cent for channel-I, channel-II and
channel-III respectively. Based on the present study, channel-I was more efficient
than channel-II and channel-III.
Naik et al. (2020) studied an economic analysis of chickpea to estimate
marketing channels, marketing cost, marketing margin and price spread in each
channel of distribution in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh. Data for the study was
collected from all 100 chickpea growers. The data is analysed using a tabulation
method. The three marketing channels were observed during study. Viz, Channel- I:
Producer- Consumer. Channel- II: Producer- Village merchant/Retailer- Consumer.
Channel- III: Producer- Commission agent -Wholesaler- Consumer. It is revealed that
through channel-I, the total marketing cost was ₹ 63.5/q, total marketing margin. ₹
550/q, price spread ₹ 680/q, producers share in consumer rupee (%) was 89.54 with a
marketing efficiency 9.55. Through channel – II, the total marketing cost was ₹
123.5/q, total marketing margin ₹ 1050/q, price spread ₹ 1240/q, producer’s share in
consumer rupee (%) was 82.44 with a marketing efficiency 5.69. Through channel –
III, the total marketing cost was ₹121.5/q, total marketing margin ₹1550/q, price
spread ₹1550/q, producer’s share in consumer rupee (%) was 79.18 with a marketing
efficiency 4.08.
Suryawanshi et al. (2020) studied Economics of linseed marketing in
Bhandara district during the year 2017-18 with 60 linseed growers. The four
marketing channels were identified during study for the marketing of linseed Viz,
Channel – I i.e., Producer –Consumer. Channel – II i.e., Producer – Village Trader –
Oil Miller – Oil Retailer – Consumer. Channel – III i.e., Producer – Oilseed
Wholesaler – Oil Miller – Oil Wholesaler – Oil Retailer – Consumer. Channel – IV

19
i.e., Producer – Oil Miller – Consumer. It was found that the channel I was most
effective and remunerative having highest producer’s share in consumer rupee i.e.,
96.56 per cent followed by Channel II 43.97 per cent, Channel IV 43.69 per cent and
Channel III 37.84 per cent. The total marketing cost was incurred by the
intermediaries was the highest in channel III i.e., ₹ 1340.80. Marketing cost and
marketing margins are found to be higher in channel II, channel III and channel IV
and least in channel I.
Tiwari and Ramchandra (2022) studied Price spread and marketing efficiency
of soybean marketing channels in district Sagar, Madhya Pradesh with 80 soybean
growers. The selection of channel was made using two stage stratified random
sampling technique. It is observed from the study that three marketing channels were
found in the marketing of soybean crop Viz, Channel-I i.e., Producer-Wholesaler-
Processor-Retailer–Consumer, Channel-II i.e., Pproducer- Village trader- Wholesaler
– Processor, Channel-III i.e., Producer-Village trader–Wholesaler – Processor.
Consumer’s Price was found out to be ₹ 66. It was more efficient than channel- II
because producer share in consumer rupee was more 91.70 per cent in channel - I,
than channel -II 81.41 per cent and channel - III is 28 per cent.

2.5. Constraints and suggestions therein in the production and marketing of

organic and inorganic soybean production.
Sanap et al. (2009) conducted a study in Parbhani district to know the
constraints and suggestions given by the farmers of organic and inorganic soybean
cultivators. For this study 60 organic and 60 inorganic soybean cultivators were
selected randomly. The findings of this study revealed that risk of low productivity,
lack of training and imparting knowledge of soybean farming, lack of scientific
nutrient management, insufficient organic manure, complexity in the use of different
inputs of organic farming were major constraints reported by farmers. As regard to
inorganic soybean cultivation, lack of scientific nutrient management, lack of good
quality seed, lack of technical scientific soil management, lack of knowledge of
fertilizers and pesticides were the constraints faced by farmers. To make organic
farming profitable suggestions given by organic soybean growers were promotion of
export facility for organic soybean, awareness about standardization 60 per cent

20
imparting training and management practice and price incentives for organic products
50 per cent.

Singh et al. (2013) studied Constraints faced by soybean growers of Mandsaur

district in Malwa plateau of Madhya Pradesh. A sample size of 100 soybean growers
were selected. Statistical measures such as percentage and ranking were used for
analysis of data. Finding revealed that the main constraints faced by most of the
farmers were incidence of insect, pests and diseases on plants 98.28 per cent, non-
availability of quality seed material 96.30 per cent, non-availability of sulphur based
phosphate fertilizers for balanced nutrition 95.17 per cent and non-availability of
appropriate plant protection chemicals 90.74 per cent which ultimately lead to low
production.
Medat et al. (2016) studied Constraints in soybean production and marketing
faced by the farmers in South Gujarat during the year 2014-15. A sample size of 144
soybean growers were selected. Frequency and percentage method were used to
analyse the opinion of farmers. The result revealed that problem of higher incidence
of non availability of labour in time, difficulties in pest and disease control and non
availability of fertilizer in time were the major constraints faced by farmers in
production of soybean. The major constraints related to marketing were fluctuation in
market prices, high commission charges and payment are not made quickly. In
economics level constraints were high cost of pesticides, high cost of seed and high
cost of fertilizer and the major constraints related to technical were lack of knowledge
about identifying the disease, lack of knowledge about identifying the pests and lack
of technical knowledge about soybean cultivation.
Sivaraj et al. (2017) studied constraints and suggestions of certified organic
farmers of Tamil Nadu. A sample size of 180 organic farmers were selected from the
districts of Coimbatore, Erode and Tiruppur districts of Tamil Nadu. Data was
collected through personnel interview method with the help of semi structured
interview schedule. Simple percentage analysis and simple ranking method were used
for the study. Findings revealed that majority 68.89 per cent of the certified organic
farmers faced constraints were inadequate availability of organic inputs in time,
scarcity of irrigation water 64.45 per cent lack of quality training on organic farming
practices 60 per cent, limited experts in preparation of organic inputs 58.89 per cent
etc.

21
 Reddy et al. (2017) studied Constraints and suggestions of the Chilli farmers
in Bhiwapur panchayat samiti of Nagpur district. A sample size of 150 chilli growers
were selected during study. For the analysis of collected data simple statistical
techniques like frequency, percentage, standard deviation and coefficient of
correlation were used. The study revealed that the important constraints were more
labour charges, shortage of labour at the time of harvesting, grading and bagging of
chilli produce, non-remunerative prices during the time of glut in market, lack of
knowledge about current market prices, less knowledge about correct quantity of
insecticides, seeds are costly and shortage of water. And suggestions to overcome the
constraints were minimum support prices should be fixed by the government, reduce
the labour problem by providing mechanized agricultural Inputs, reduce the middle
men’s interfere in marketing of chilli, provide storage facilities at Nagpur level,
irrigation facility should be provided throughout the year.
Naik et al. (2018) studied constraints and suggestions as expressed by
respondents in organic red gram cultivation in dryland areas of Karnataka. A sample
size of 120 organic red gram growers were selected. The results were analysed with
the help of different statistical tools such as frequency, percentage and rankings.
Findings revealed that the majority of the respondents 83.33 per cent had expressed
the constraint on increased cost of cultivation and hence it was ranked I and in
transfer of technology constraints, majority 85 per cent of farmers faced lack of
regular visits by extension workers to give guidance to farmers on organic red gram
farming and hence it was ranked I. and in case of situational constraints, majority
70.83 per cent of farmers faced constraint on transportation of organic manure is
costly and laborious and hence it was ranked I. majority 79.76 per cent of the farmers
perceived the constraint of complex and costly certification process for organic red
gram cultivation and hence it was ranked I.
Kantheti et al. (2019) studied on constraints faced by the tenant farmers of Bt
cotton and suggestions to overcome those constraints. A sample size of 120 Bt cotton
growers were selected. The statistical techniques like frequency, percentage were used
to analyse the data. Finding revealed that the major constraints faced by the Bt cotton
tenant farmers were inadequate financial assistance from banks which ranked first,
followed by non-availability of crop insurance for tenant farmers that ranked second,
high interest rates by private money lenders, ranked third, high rents for the lands
leased, ranked fourth and non-availability of loan waiver scheme for tenant farmers,

22
ranked fifth. Another major constraint was no written lease agreements, non
availability of credit in time, input subsidy is not available, high cost of Bt cotton
seed. Major suggestions given by the Bt cotton tenant farmers in percentage
decreasing order are sufficient financial assistance at low interest rate was ranked
first, followed by crop insurance should be available, ranked second, government
should monitor the land lease rents, ranked third and provide loan waiver scheme for
tenant farmers, ranked fourth. It also revealed that the suggestions such as written
agreements should be made, input subsidy need to be provided.
Behera et al. (2021) studied constraints and suggestions on implementation of
BGREI programme by rice growers of Odisha, India during the year 2016-17. A
sample size of 80 BGREI beneficiary farmers were selected. Major constraints
perceived by farmers were ‘lack of extension supervision and technical guidance’,
‘lack of timely supply of inputs through the programme’, ‘biased attitude shown by
government officials towards beneficiaries’, ‘lack of proper marketing facilities and
transportation of produce’, ‘delay in payment of the produce sold by the farmers in
mandies’, ‘lack of irrigation facility in Rabi season for farming’ and ‘lack of storage
facility of the produce ‘as expressed by the beneficiaries. As suggested by the
farmers, ‘agricultural extension officials should monitor all these constraints related
issues', ‘ensure all these facilities’ and ‘should strictly adhere to the guidelines along
with possible supports to beneficiary rice farmers’ for effective implementation of the
programme.
Dash et al. (2021) studied input contribution, constraints & suggestions
involved in the production and marketing of maize in Nabarangapur district of
Odisha. A sample size of 120 maize growers were selected. The study revealed that at
land preparation stage major contribution 90 per cent was by the farmers themselves
where as more than 50 per cent of the contribution of the dealers /distributors are
observed at Procurement of seeds, fertilizers and plant protection chemicals and soil
treatment stages. The majority of the respondents stated that Lack of irrigation
facilities 96.7 per cent and erratic climatic conditions 91.7 per cent as primary
constraint in production where as fluctuation in market price 95.8 per cent and distress
sale of the produce 90.8 per cent as a prominent marketing constraint faced by them in
the production and marketing of maize. The majority of the respondents stated various
suggestions to face the problems including proper irrigation facilities 94.29 per cent
and lower price of the inputs 90.8 per cent should be taken into consideration with

23
immediate effect to improve the production and marketing efficiency of maize
cultivation.
Giri et al. (2022) studied Constraints faced by small farmers in Western
Maharashtra during the year 2020-21. Sample size of 360 small farmers were
selected. The data is analysed by using statistical tools such as Frequency, Percentage,
Mean and Standard deviation, Correlation and Multiple linear regression. The result
revealed that the important constraint faced by small farmers were non –remunerative
prices of agro produce, Fragmentation of land holdings, income obtained is less, not
sufficient for family expenditure, condition of road and poor transportation, less
market awareness and market information. The major suggestions to overcome the
constraints were Government need to provide good and assured market for agriculture
commodity, Awareness among farmers related to market information and prices of
produce, Provide training to the small farmers to create awareness about improved
farm practices, new technology and processing and value addition of farm produce.

24
 CHAPTER -III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CHAPTER – III

MATERIALS & METHODS

This chapter mainly emphasizes to discuss in brief the methodology adopted
for the present study. This chapter deals with the characteristics of area selected for
the study, the methods adopted in selection of the samples, nature and sources of data,
various statistical tools and techniques used in analysing the data. The methodology is
presented under the following headings:
3.1 Salient features of the study area
3.2 Sampling procedure
3.3 Analytical techniques employed
3.4 Definition of terms and concepts
3.1 Salient features of Wardha district
The location, soil, climate, population and cropping pattern of the district
where the study was conducted are all important features.
3.1.1 Location

Wardha district is located in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra state and is

named after its most important river, the Wardha. The district is bounded on the west
and north by Amravati district, on the south by Yavatmal district, on the south-east by
Chandrapur district and on the east by Nagpur district. The boundaries with Amravati
and Yavatmal districts are identified by the river Wardha. This district is a part of
Nagpur division. The physiographic division of Wardha yields three separate sections
which are The region surrounding the Talegaon plateau, along the uplands of the north
and north east, The narrow stretch of land forming the Arvi plains, which are situated
to the west of the northern uplands, Wardha- Hinganghat plains. The district covers
6310 sq. km. The Wardha district is situated at latitude of N20° 15'-N 21°21′ and
longitude of E 78°30'-E 79°15'. It has an average elevation of 234 m (768 ft). The
district comprises of 8 tehsils namely Wardha, Deoli, Seloo, Arvi, Ashti, Karanja,
Hinganghat and Samudrapur. Hinganghat, Arvi and Wardha are the major cities in the
district. Number of grampanchayat are 517 and number of villages are 1382. The
Loksabha constituency of the district is itself Wardha and Vidhan sabha
constituencies are Wardha, Deoli, Arvi, Hinganghat. The average annual precipitation
is 1062.8 mm. The major highways are NH 44 and NH 7.

25
3.1.2 Climate

The district receives its rainfall essentially from the south-west monsoon.
Average rainfall is in between 1100 mm to 1150 mm. The wet season is oppressive
and overcast, the dry season is mostly clear and it is hot year around. The average
wind speed in Wardha is 2.7 m/s with the maximum wind speed of around 8 m/s.
Wardha district summer highest day temperature is in between 31°𝐶 to 49°𝐶. Average
temperature of January is 20℃, February is 25°𝐶, March is 30°𝐶, April is 34℃, May
is 38°𝐶. The average relative humidity remains around 56.5 per cent, varies from 12.8
per cent to 99.6 per cent. The station pressure varies from 974 hPa to 960 hPa,
averaged around 987 hPa.

3.1.3 Soil

The soil of the district is basically derived from the Deccan Trap Basalt and
almost entire district consists of black or dark brown soil over a sheet of Deccan Trap
Basalt. The soil varies in depth from few centi metres to 3m with average thickness
being about 0.75 m.

3.1.4 Population & Literacy

As per 2011 census of India, Wardha district has a population of 1,300,774 out
of which 668,385 are male and 632,389 are female. Literate people are 1,019,458 out
of 552,617 are male and 466,841 are female. Total workers are 608,235 out of which
men are 392,316 and omen are 215,919. Sex ratio of Wardha district is 946 female per
1000 of males. Total 124,563 cultivators are dependent on agriculture out of which
89,599 are cultivated by men and 34,964 are women.

3.2. Sampling design

Primary data

The respondent’s primary data was collected through personal interviews

using pre-tested interview schedules. General information about the farmer's
socioeconomic profile, land holding, cropping pattern, farm assets including
livestock, cost and input used in soybean production, problems faced by farmers in
soybean production, and marketing were all elicited.

26
1. Hinganghat

2. Samudrapur

Fig 3.1. Map showing selected study area (Wardha district)

 Plate 3.2 Data collection from organic soybean grower

Plate 3.3 Data collection from inorganic soybean grower

 Sampling design

For present study multistage sampling design was adopted for selection of
the district, tehsils, village and respondent farmers.

3.2.1. Selection of commodities

For this study, Soybean was selected as of their importance in their present
situation in the study area.

3.2.2. Selection of district

At first stage, Wardha district was purposively selected because it is known
for highest soybean production district in the western part of Maharashtra region.

3.2.3. Selection of tehsils

At second stage, two tehsils were selected as the soybean growers were more
concentrated in these two tehsils. Those two tehsils were Hinganghat and
Samudrapur.

3.2.4. Selection of villages

At third stage, from each tehsil three villages were selected randomly. Thus,
in all 6 villages from the two tehsils were selected. Those six villages were Umri,
Sultanpur, Kadajana, Ubda, Wagheda and Barfa.

3.2.5. Selection of farmers

At the fourth stage, 10 farmers from each village were selected who follows
organic and inorganic soybean cultivation practices. Thus from 6 villages 60 farmers
each of organic and inorganic were selected randomly. Thus the total sample size
was of 120 farmers who were practicing organic and inorganic soybean cultivation.

3.3. Analytical techniques

Functional analysis
3.3.1 Growth rates of area, production and productivity
The trends in area, production and productivity were estimated by using
following formulae:
Y= abt

27
Where,
Y=Area, production and Productivity
b = Trend coefficient
a = Intercept
t = Time variable

The compound annual growth rates of the trends in area, production and
productivity were estimated by using the following formula:
CGR = (Antilog b-1) × 100

3.3.2. Socio-economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean growers

The second objective was achieved by application of tabular analysis by

collecting all the socio-economic characters of the growers.

3.3.3 Cost, returns and profitability of organic and inorganic soybean growers.

The third objective was analysed by using cost concepts i.e., cost-A, cost-B
and cost-C.

Terms and concepts

Evaluation of inputs

Inputs are the factors of production. They refer to those expenses of

cultivation that are incurred in the form of cash and kind. The items considered under
this are
A. Physical inputs and
B. Monetary inputs

A. Physical inputs

Human labour

It includes both hired and family labour. Most of the labour force engaged in
crop production comes from cultivators own family. However, the cultivators had
engaged/hired labour from time to time for certain operation human labour cost
comprises of :

28
a) Wages actual paid to the hired labour.
b) Imputed values of family labour.

Hired human labour was measured on the basis of actual wages paid. And
wages of family members (male and female) were calculated on the basis of existing
wage rate of hired human labours.

Bullock labour

Hired bullock labour charge was considered for 8 hour as a day, actually paid
in the locality. Family bullock labour charges accounted equal to the charges paid to
the hired bullock pair.

Machine labour

Machine labour in case of owned machine was evaluated as per the hired
charge prevailed in the village.

Seed

The actual price with expenditure incurred on procurement was taken into
account for purchase of Soybean seed.

Fertilizers

Fertilizers required Urea, SSP, DAP, MOP, 10:26:26, 18:18:10 were used and
quantity of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash was calculated in order to determine the
actual expenditure on nitrogen, phosphorus and potash.

Manure

Manure produced on the own farm was evaluated at the rate of prevailed in the
village. The cost of purchased manure was accounted according to the price paid by
cultivator.

29
Plant protection

The actual hire charges of plant protection appliances taken from outside and
the actual cost of insecticides/Bio-insecticide, pesticides/Bio-pesticide were
considered.

Land revenue

It included land revenue and other relevant taxes, which were actually paid out
by Turmeric grower.

Depreciation on implements, machinery and farm building

Farm assets like implements and farm building were evaluated at the
prevailing market price, price taking into consideration, the condition of assets for the
current year was calculated using straight line method as a whole farm and considered
according to hectares of farm, for which the present value and the remaining useful
life of assets was considered.

Incidental charges

It included minor repairs, and other expenditure in regard to soybean

cultivation.

B. Monetary inputs

Land revenue cesses and taxes

This cost included land revenue and other relevant taxes and cesses, which
were actually paid by cultivators.

Interest on working capital

Interest on working capital was charged at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
The working capital was worked out on the current expenses. Such as expenditure on
hired human labour, seed, manure and fertilizers, irrigation, plant protection, land
revenue and incidental expenditure.

30
Interest on fixed capital

Value of total assets was calculated and then 10 per cent of average value of
fixed assets (excluding land) such as farm building, implements and machinery,
irrigation structure and equipment and livestock (only drought animal) was considered
as the total interest on fixed assets.

10% of average value of fixed assets

Interest on fixed capital/ha = -----------------------------------------------------------

Average cropped area

Rental value of land

Rental value of the land i.e. charges for the use of land was charged at 1/6th of
the value of total produce excluding the land revenue.

Income Concept

i. Farm business income: it is calculated by gross return minus Cost-A.

ii. Family labour income: it is calculated by gross return minus Cost-B.

iii. Net profit: it is calculated by gross return minus Cost-C.

iv. Output-Input ratio: it is calculated by gross return divided by Cost-C.

Items of cost

Cost-A

It is the actual paid out cost by the cultivators in the form of cash and kind. It
approximates the actual expenditure incurred by the Farmers. Thus, the cost includes
the expenditure on.

I. Hired human labour

II. Bullock labour

31
III. Machine labour

IV. Cost of seed

V. Cost of manures and fertilizers

VI. Plant protection measures

VII. Irrigation charges

VIII. Depreciation on assets

IX. Land revenue and other taxes

X. Incidental expenditure

XI. Interest on working capital, and

Cost-B

Cost-B includes Cost-A plus the imputed costs of rental value of land and
interest on fixed capital.

Cost-C

It includes Cost-B plus imputed value of family labour. Thus cost-C means the
total cost of cultivation.

3.3.4 Marketing channels and price spread in organic and inorganic soybean
marketing.

It is made up of several agencies that carry out the various marketing tasks in
order to get the produce from the point of production to the final consumer. Soybean
must get to the consumer when it has finished production. It entailed using a variety
of middlemen and numerous routes to get to the consumer. The method by which a
product gets to a consumer is referred to as the marketing channel for that product.

The goal of the current study was to identify several markets and marketing
channels. Since the oil processor served as the study's final consumer, the following
marketing channels were chosen.

32
 i. Channel-I : Producer- wholesaler-oil processer.

ii. Channel-II : Producer- village trader -wholesaler-oil processer.

The following intermediaries and terms were recorded in the marketing of

soybean. The people that specialize in carrying out various marketing tasks related to
the procurement and selling of food as it moves from producer to consumer are
known as marketing intermediaries.

Village trader

The role of the village trader is to buy and sell produce. The amount bought
and sold to the wholesaler is considerably less.

Wholesaler

He is a middleman who participates in the marketing of produce as a

commission agent or wholesaler. He charges a set commission rate in exchange for
his services may occasionally inform the farmer producers of the price of the produce.

Processor

Processors operate either independently or according to customer request.

Some processors use agents to continuously purchase produce from growing regions,
store it, and process it throughout the year. To generate interest in their processed
products, they also use advertising. Measurement and evaluation of cost items
Marketing cost Marketing costs are the actual expenses incurred in marketing process.
Cost of marketing refers to the amount spent by the producer, seller and
intermediaries in the sale or purchase of commodity from times of its harvest till it is
finally reach to the ultimate consumer. Cost of marketing comprises loading,
unloading, transportation, weighing charges, commission charges, labour packaging,
market fees etc.

Marketing cost

Marketing costs are the actual expenses incurred in marketing process. Cost of
marketing refers to the amount spent by the producer, seller and intermediaries in the
sale or purchase of commodity from times of its harvest till it is finally reach to the

33
ultimate consumer. Cost of marketing comprises loading, unloading, transportation,
weighing charges, commission charges, labour packaging, market fees etc.

Marketing margin

It is the difference between the price paid by consumers for farm produce and
what the farmer receives. In a sense, the marketing margin is the price of all utility
addition activities and functions performed by marketing functionaries. This price
includes the expenses of agencies performing marketing functions and also their
profit. Marketing margin is the difference in price received by the producer and price
paid by the ultimate consumer. Marketing margin are the actual amounts received by
the marketing agencies in the marketing process.

Marketable surplus

It is residual left with producer-farmer after meeting his requirements for

family consumption, farm need, cattle need and payment of labour.
Marketable surplus = Total production - Total consumption

Marketed surplus

It is quantity of producer which farmer actually sell in the market, irrespective

of his requirements for family consumption and other need.

Price spread

It refers to the difference between price paid by the consumer and price
received by the producer for an equivalent quantity of the farm product. This price
spread consists of marketing costs and margins of the intermediaries. It gives fair idea
about relative efficiency of various marketing systems and channels.

Producers share in consumer's rupee

It is the ratio of net price received by producer to the price paid by consumer
and can be calculated as:

34
 Net price received by producer
Producers share in = ----------------------------------------------------------- x 100
Consumer's rupee Price Paid by Consumer

Marketing Efficiency

The marketing efficiency of the selected marketing channels was studied with
the help of slightly shepherd’s formula as given below.

𝑉
M.E. = -1
𝐼

Where,

ME = Index of marketing efficiency

V = Value of Soybean

I = Total marketing cost

3.3.5. Constraints and suggestions in production and marketing of organic and

inorganic soybean.

Constraints and suggestions in production and marketing of organic and

inorganic soybean were analysed by frequency distribution method and ranked on the
basis of highest to lowest frequency. Such as constraint of highest frequency ranked 1
and so on.

35
 CHAPTER – IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER – IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the study are presented in this chapter. It consists of the data of
soybean on area, production and productivity from year 2001-02 to 2020-21. The
socio-economic characteristics, land use pattern, livestock position, cropping pattern
of organic and inorganic soybean growers were studied and presented in this chapters.
The cost, returns and profitability of organic and inorganic soybean growers are
presented. And the marketing channels used to sell organic and inorganic soybean
produce are discussed. Also the constraints faced by farmers and suggestions given to
them are included. The investigation was carried out in the year 2020-21. The result is
presented under following objectives:

4.1 Growth rates of area, production and productivity of Soybean.

4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean production.
4.3 Comparative costs, returns and profitability in the production of organic and
inorganic soybean.
4.4 Comparative marketing cost, marketing margins and price spread in the marketing
of organic and inorganic soybean.
4.5 Constraints and suggestions therein in the production and marketing of organic
and inorganic soybean production.

4.1. Growth rates of area, production and productivity of Soybean.

The year wise data on area, production, and productivity of soybean in

Maharashtra's Wardha district for the last 20 years, from 2001-02 to 2020-21, were
obtained from www.krishi.maharashtra.gov.in. Table 4.1 shows the estimated annual
compound growth rates of area, production, and productivity of soybean in Wardha
district.

From Table 4.1. It is revealed that, the area, production and productivity of
soybean crop from year 2001-02 to 2020-21 were found to be non-significant.

36
Table 4.1: Growth rates of area, production and productivity of soybean

Sr. No. Years Area Production Productivity

(“00’’ha) (“00” Tonnes) (Kg/ha)
1 2001-02 1286 1668 1297 1
2 2002-03 1598 1692 1059 1
3 2003-04 1738 2539 1461 1
4 2004-05 1955 2020 1033 1
5 2005-06 2147 2339 1090 1
6 2006-07 2305 2778 1205 1
7 2007-08 2292 3053 1332 1
8 2008-09 2499 1461 585 5
9 2009-10 1789 1040 581 5
10 2010-11 1378 1516 1100 1
11 2011-12 1730 1506 871 8
12 2012-13 1767 1887 1068 1
13 2013-14 1856 1217 656 6
14 2014-15 1542 671 435 4
15 2015-16 1398 615 440 4
16 2016-17 1272 1504 1182 1
17 2017-18 1161 1774 1528 1
18 2018-19 1185.08 1551.69 1309.35 1
19 2019-20 1130.28 1474.1 1304.19 1
20 2020-21 1257 680 541 5
CAGR -2.46 -4.17 -1.75

(Source: www.krishi.maharashtra.gov.in)

37
4.2. Socio-economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean production.

The socio-economic status of organic and inorganic soybean growers were

shown in the Table 4.2. It includes the age, education, family size, family labour, land
holding, annual income and the occupation of the organic and inorganic soybean
growers. And the livestock position on farms, land use pattern on farms and cropping
pattern of farms were studied.

4.2.1 Age

Age is an important factor which affects the working efficiency as well as skill
and experience of the farmer. Hence age of farmers was analysed which is shown in
Table 4.2. It implies that the majority of the organic soybean growers was from
middle age adult group (40-59 years) i.e., 51.67 per cent followed by senior age adult
group (60 years & above) i.e., 30 per cent and adult age group (20-39 years) i.e.,
18.33 per cent. Wherein the majority of the inorganic soybean growers were from
both the middle age group (40-59 years) & senior age group (60 & above) i.e., 45 per
cent of each and followed by adult age group (20-39 years) i.e., 10 per cent.

Hence, it is concluded that experience farmers were looking after the soybean
cultivation in study area.

4.2.2 Education

The education helps to enhance the farm productivity as the growers can
innovate the new ideas to overcome the constraints and helps in proper decision
making and developing skill. The reason why level of education was analysed and the
result of which shown in Table 4.2. It is observed that majority of the organic soybean
growers were under graduate i.e., 26.67 per cent, 20 per cent farmers had attained
high school, 16.67 per cent completed higher secondary level of education, 15 per
cent growers were from primary level of education, 10 per cent growers were from
secondary level of education, 8.33 per cent growers completed post-graduation and
3.33 per cent were illiterate. And in case of inorganic soybean grower’s majority of
the growers completed higher secondary level of education i.e., 28.33 per cent, 20 per
cent growers were under graduated, 16.67 per cent growers completed secondary level
38
of education, 11.67 per cent growers were illiterate, 10 per cent growers attained high
school, 8.33 per cent growers were belonging to primary level and 5 per cent growers
were post graduated.

It is concluded that the majority of the organic soybean growers were under
graduate and that in inorganic soybean majority of growers had attained higher
secondary level of education.

4.2.3 Family size

Family size affects on the production, availability of labours and consumption

of the family. Consumption increases as the family size increases while production
remains same. And availability of labours increases with increase of family size.
Therefore the family size of growers were analysed and given in Table 4.2. It is
observed that in case of organic soybean growers, 44 per cent growers were having
male members, followed by 37.09 per cent female and 18.91 per cent were childrens.
Whereas in inorganic soybean growers 43.42 per cent were male as well as female
followed by 13.16 per cent childrens.

Hence, it is concluded that majority of males were working on farms in

organic soybean cultivation and in inorganic soybean cultivation there was no
difference between male and female, both were in majority.

4.2.4 Family labour

Family labours helps to reduce the daily wages of hired labours thus the cost
of cultivation gets reduced. Therefore the family labour were analysed which is given
in the Table 4.2. It is observed that in organic soybean, 57.36 per cent were male
family labours and 42.64 per cent were female family labours. And of inorganic
soybean, 57.55 per cent were male family labours and 42.45 per cent were female
family labours.

It is concluded that there is a slight difference between male/female family

labours of organic soybean growers and inorganic soybean growers.

39
4.2.5 Land holding

The distribution of land holding is given in Table 4.2. It is observed that out of
organic soybean growers, 40 per cent growers were having land up to 2 ha, 31.67 per
cent growers were having land above 4 ha and 28.33 per cent growers were having
land 2 to 4 ha. Whereas out of inorganic soybean growers, 60 per cent growers were
having land up to 2 ha, 30 per cent growers were having land 2 to 4 ha and 10 per cent
growers were having land above 4 ha.

It is concluded that the majority of growers were having land up to 2 ha of

both (organic and inorganic) soybean growers. i.e., the majority of growers belongs to
the small farmer class.

4.2.6 Annual income

According to the new world bank country classification by income level;

2021-22, the growers were classified into four categories viz. low income level (< ₹
83596.32), lower middle income (between ₹ 83596.32 to ₹ 327272.4), upper middle
income (between ₹ 327272.4 to ₹ 1014584.4) and high income (> ₹ 1014584.4). The
organic and inorganic soybean growers annual income is shown in Table 4.2. It is
observed that majority of the organic soybean growers were having lower middle
income i.e., 46.67 per cent followed by low income i.e., 38.33 per cent and upper
middle income i.e., 15 per cent. While in inorganic soybean growers majority of
growers were having lower middle income i.e., 60 per cent followed by low income
i.e., 40 per cent.

It is concluded that the majority of organic and inorganic soybean growers

were having their annual income in the range of lower middle income.

4.2.7 Occupation

The occupation of organic and inorganic soybean growers divided into

agriculture, service and business as shown in Table 4.2. It is observed that the
majority of organic soybean growers were involved in the agriculture i.e., 70 per cent
followed by service 16.67 per cent and business 13.33 per cent. While majority of

40
inorganic soybean growers were involved in agriculture i.e., 73.34 followed by both
service 13.33 per cent and business 13.33 per cent.

It is concluded that the most soybean growers of organic and inorganic

practices were involved in agriculture.

41
Table 4.2: Socio-economic status of organic and inorganic soybean growers.

Sr. Particulars Organic Inorganic

No.
Number Percentage Number Percentage
(N=60) (N=60)
1 Age in Years
Adult (20-39) 11 18.33 6 10
Middle age adult (40-59) 31 51.67 27 45
Senior age adult (60 & 18 30 27 45
above)
2 Education
Illiterate 2 3.33 7 11.67
Primary 9 15 5 8.33
High School 12 20 6 10
SSC 6 10 10 16.67
HSC 10 16.67 17 28.33
Under graduate 16 26.67 12 20
Post graduate 5 8.33 3 5
3 Family Size
Male 2.02 44 1.65 43.42
Female 1.7 37.09 1.65 43.42
Children 0.87 18.91 0.5 13.16
4 Family Labour
Family male labour 1.88 57.36 1.33 57.55
Family female labour 1.4 42.64 0.98 42.45
5 Land Holding
Up to 2 ha 24 40 36 60
2 to 4 ha 17 28.33 18 30
Above 4 ha 19 31.67 6 10
6 Annual Income
Low income (< 83596.32) 23 38.33 24 40
Lower middle income 28 46.67 36 60
(83596.32 to 327272.4)
Upper middle income 9 15 0 0
(327272.4 to 1014584.4)
High income (> 0 0 0 0
1014584.4)
7 Occupation
Agriculture 42 70 44 73.34
Service 10 16.67 8 13.33
Business 8 13.33 8 13.33

42
4.2.8 Livestock position of organic and inorganic soybean growers.

The livestock position on organic and inorganic soybean farms is presented in

Table 4.3. It was observed that organic soybean growers had highest number of
poultry birds 48.94 per cent, followed by number of goats 21.11 per cent, number of
cows 13.42 per cent, number of buffaloes 8.67 per cent and number of bullock pairs
7.86 per cent. While inorganic soybean growers had highest number of poultry birds
38.99 per cent, followed by number of goats 21.43 per cent, number of cows 20.54
per cent, number of bullock pair 12.5 per cent and number of buffaloes 6.55 per cent.

It is concluded that the number of poultry birds and buffaloes were more on
organic soybean farms than that of on inorganic soybean farms. While number of
goats, cows and bullock pairs were more on inorganic farms than that of organic
farms.

Table 4.3: Livestock position on farms

Sr. no. Particulars Organic Inorganic
Number Percentage Number Percentage
(N=60) (N=60)

1 Bullock pair 0.80 7.86 0.70 12.5

2 Cow 1.37 13.42 1.15 20.54

3 Buffalo 0.88 8.67 0.37 6.55

4 Goat 2.15 21.11 1.20 21.43

5 Poultry 4.98 48.94 2.18 38.99

4.2.9 Land use pattern

Per farm land use pattern of organic and inorganic soybean growers is
calculated and presented in Table 4.4. The study revealed that on an average, the total
land holding of organic soybean growers was 1.78 ha out of which 92.14 per cent area
was under irrigation. Hence, the double cropped area was as same as the irrigated
area. Thus, the gross cropped area was 3.42 ha. And that of total land holding of

43
inorganic soybean growers was 1.65 ha out of which 96.67 per cent area was under
irrigation. Hence, the double cropped area was as same as the irrigated area. Thus, the
gross cropped area was accounted 3.25 ha.
It is concluded that the total land holding, irrigated area, double cropped area
and gross cropped area of organic soybean growers were more than that of inorganic
soybean growers.

Table 4.4: Per farm land use pattern of organic and inorganic soybean growers.

Sr. No. Particulars Organic Inorganic

Area (ha) Percentage Area (ha) Percentage
1 Total area 1.78 100 1.65 100
2 Rainfed area 1.78 100 1.65 100
3 Irrigated area 1.64 92.14 1.60 96.97
4 Gross cropped area 3.42 - 3.25 -
5 Net sown area 1.78 100 1.65 100
6 Double cropped area 1.64 92.14 1.60 96.97

4.2.10 Cropping pattern

The cropping pattern refers to the proportion of land under cultivation of
various crops at different points of time. During study it was observed that there were
three seasons viz. kharif, rabi and summer which is shown in Table 4.5. In case of
organic soybean cultivation, the land used during kharif season was 1.78 ha in which
lone soybean accounted 1.78 ha of area. The land used during rabi season accounted
0.96 ha of area out of which wheat, chickpea and sorghum contributes 0.48 ha, 0.32
ha and 0.16 ha, respectively. The land used during summer season accounted 0.68 ha
of area out of which groundnut and fodder crops contributes 0.5 ha and 0.18 ha
respectively. In case of inorganic soybean cultivation, the land used during kharif
season was 1.65 ha in which lone soybean accounted 1.65 ha of area. The land used
during rabi season accounted 1.18 ha of area out of which wheat, chickpea and
sorghum contributes 0.64 ha, 0.38 ha and 0.16 ha respectively. The land used during
summer season accounted 0.68 ha out of which groundnut and fodder crop contributes
0.31 ha and 0.12 ha respectively.
44
 In case of organic soybean cultivation, net cropped area was 1.78 ha, double
cropped area was 1.64 ha, gross cropped area was 3.42 ha and cropping intensity was
187.46 per cent. As that of in inorganic soybean cultivation, net cropped area was
1.65 ha, double cropped area was 1.6 ha, gross cropped area was 3.25 ha and cropping
intensity was 195.34 per cent.
It is concluded that the land utilized during kharif and summer seasons was
more of organic soybean growers than that of inorganic soybean growers. And land
utilized during rabi season was more of inorganic soybean growers than that of
organic soybean growers. And the cropping intensity was more of inorganic soybean
growers as compared to organic soybean growers.

Table 4.5: Cropping pattern of organic and inorganic soybean growers.

Sr. No. Particulars Organic Inorganic

Area (ha) Percent Area (ha) Percent

1 Kharif
Soybean 1.78 52.04 1.65 52.04
2 Rabi
Sorghum 0.16 4.53 0.16 4.82
Wheat 0.48 14.12 0.64 19.59
Chickpea 0.32 9.44 0.38 11.64
Sub Total 0.96 28.09 1.18 36.05
3 Summer
Groundnut 0.50 14.56 0.31 9.54
Fodder 0.18 5.31 0.12 3.64
Sub Total 0.68 19.87 0.43 13.18
ⅰ Gross cropped area 3.42 100 3.25 100
ⅰⅰ Net cropped area 1.78 52.04 1.65 50.77
ⅲ Double cropped area 1.64 47.96 1.6 49.23
ⅳ Cropping intensity (%) - 187.46 - 195.34

45
 3.64
9.54

11.64

50.77

19.59

4.82

Soybean Sorghum
Wheat Chickpea
Groundnut Fodder

Fig. 4.1: Cropping pattern of Inorganic Soybean growers.

 14.56

9.44

52.04

14.12

4.53

Soybean Sorghum Wheat

Chickpea Groundnut Fodder

Fig. 4.2: Cropping pattern of Organic Soybean growers.

4.3. Costs, returns and profitability in the production of organic and inorganic
soybean.

It deals with the costs, returns and profitability of organic and inorganic
soybean cultivation in the study area. For estimation of the total cost, physical and
manual input costs were considered and for the estimation of total returns value of
main and by produce were considered. From this we can conclude the more profitable
cultivation among organic and inorganic soybean cultivation.
4.3.1 Operation wise labour requirement in organic and inorganic soybean
Cultivation.

In organic and inorganic soybean cultivation, same operations were carried out
i.e., ploughing, harrowing, cleaning, manuring, sowing, application of fertilizers
(excluded in organic soybean cultivation), hoeing, spraying, harvesting, threshing.
Operation wise labour requirement were noted and presented in Table 4.6. The
labours are categorized as follows; hired male labour, hired female labour, family
male labour, family female labour, bullock labour and machine labour.

In organic soybean cultivation, per hectare total hired male labour required are
31.18 man days out of which highest number of hired male required for manuring i.e.,
20.85 per cent followed by spraying (17.90%), ploughing (15.11%), hoeing (14.75%),
threshing (13.15%), harrowing (10.42%), sowing (5.74%) and harvesting (2.08%).
And total hired female labour required are 58.48 man days out of which highest
number of hired female required for weeding i.e., 44.56 per cent followed by
harvesting (24.16%), cleaning (19.36%) and sowing (11.92%). And total family male
labour required are 6.56 man days out of which highest number of family male
required for harvesting i.e., (16.62%) followed by cleaning (16.61%), manuring
(14.79%), threshing (13.11%), sowing (12.80%), hoeing (8.54%), harrowing (6.25%),
ploughing (4.42%), spraying (4.27%) and weeding (2.59%). And total family female
labour required are 2.98 man days out of which highest number of family female
labour required for cleaning, weeding, harvesting i.e., 27.18 percent of each. And
followed by sowing (18.46%). Total bullock labours required are 5.56 man days out
of which highest number of bullock labours required for sowing and hoeing i.e., 29.68
per cent each, followed by ploughing (24.82%) and harrowing (18.52%). Total

46
machine labours required are 22.71 man days out of which highest number of
machine labours required for ploughing i.e., 35.75 per cent followed by harrowing
(23.82%), threshing (21.58%) and manuring (18.85%).

In inorganic soybean cultivation, per hectare total hired male labour required
are 34.48 man days out of which highest number of hired male required for manuring
i.e., 16.30 per cent followed by hoeing (14.79%), ploughing (14.18%), spraying
(14.04%), threshing (12.09%), application of fertilizers (10.27%), harrowing (9.75%),
sowing (4.93%) and harvesting (3.65%). And total hired female labour required are
48.62 man days out of which highest number of hired female labour required for
weeding i.e., 34.54 per cent followed by harvesting (27.56%), cleaning (24.04%) and
sowing (13.86%). And total family male labour required are 6.24 man days out of
which highest number of family male labour required for harvesting i.e., 12.50 per
cent followed by application of fertilizers (12.34%), hoeing and sowing (12.18%)
each, manuring (12.02%), threshing (11.86%), cleaning (11.54%), weeding (5.93%),
spraying (3.36%), ploughing (3.21%) and harrowing (2.88%). And total family
female labour required are 2.39 man days out of which highest number of family
female required for cleaning i.e., 26.78 per cent followed by harvesting (25.94%),
weeding (25.52%) and sowing (21.76%). And total bullock labour required are 3.89
man days out of which highest number of bullock labour required for hoeing i.e,
41.13 per cent followed by ploughing (26.22%), harrowing (22.62%) and sowing
(10.03%). And total machine labour required are 22.01 man days out of which highest
number of machine labour required for ploughing i.e., 37.94 per cent followed by
harrowing (24.81%), threshing (19.80%) and (17.45%).

Hence, it is concluded that hired male labour in inorganic soybean cultivation

was slightly more than in organic soybean cultivation. Whereas hired female labour &
bullock labour in organic soybean cultivation was more than that of inorganic soybean
cultivation and remaining inputs follow same trend.

47
 Plate 4.1 Glimp of Soybean field

Plate 4.2 Pod formation of soybean

Table 4.6: Operation wise labour requirement in organic and inorganic soybean cultivation.

Sr. Particulars Organic Inorganic

No.
Hired Hired Family Family Bullock Machine Hired Hired Family Family Bullock Machine
male female male female pairs (hours) male female male female pairs (hours)
labour labour labour labour (days) labour labour labour labour (days)
1 Ploughing 4.71 0.00 0.29 0.00 1.38 8.12 4.89 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.02 8.35
(15.11) (0.00) (4.42) (0.00) (24.82) (35.75) (14.18) (0.00) (3.21) (0.00) (26.22) (37.94)
2 Harrowing 3.25 0.00 0.41 0.00 1.03 5.41 3.36 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.88 5.46
(10.42) (0.00) (6.25) (0.00) (18.52) (23.82) (9.75) (0.00) (2.88) (0.0) (22.62) (24.81)
3 Cleaning 0.00 11.32 1.09 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.69 0.72 0.64 0.00 0.00
(0.00) (19.36) (16.61) (27.18) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (24.04) (11.54) (26.78) (0.00) (0.00)
4 Manuring 6.50 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 4.28 5.62 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 3.84
(20.85) (0.00) (14.79) (0.00) (0.00) (18.85) (16.30) (0.00) (12.02) (0.00) (0.00) (17.45)
5 Sowing 1.79 6.97 0.84 0.55 1.50 0.00 1.70 6.74 0.76 0.52 0.39 0.00
(5.74) (11.92) (12.80) (18.46) (26.98) (0.00) (4.93) (13.86) (12.18) (21.76) (10.03) (0.00)
6 Application - - - - - - 3.54 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00
of fertilizers (10.27) (0.00) (12.34) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
7 Weeding 0.00 26.06 0.17 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.79 0.37 0.61 0.00 0.00
(0.00) (44.56) (2.59) (27.18) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (34.54) (5.93) (25.52) (0.00) (0.00)
8 Hoeing 4.60 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.65 0.00 5.10 0.00 0.76 0.00 1.60 0.00
(14.75) (0.00) (8.54) (0.00) (29.68) (0.00) (14.79) (0.00) (12.18) (0.00) (41.13) (0.00)
9 Spraying 5.58 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.84 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00
(17.90) (0.00) (4.27) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (14.04) (0.00) (3.36) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
10 Harvesting 0.65 14.13 1.09 0.81 0.00 0.00 1.26 13.40 0.78 0.62 0.00 0.00
(2.08) (24.16) (16.62) (27.18) (0.00) (0.00) (3.65) (27.56) (12.50) (25.94) (0.00) (0.00)
11 Threshing 4.10 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 4.90 4.17 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 4.36
(13.15) (0.00) (13.11) (0.00) (0.00) (21.58) (12.09) (0.00) (11.86) (0.00) (0.00) (19.80)
Total 31.18 58.48 6.56 2.98 5.56 22.71 34.48 48.62 6.24 2.39 3.89 22.01
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

48
4.3.2 Physical input and output of organic and inorganic soybean cultivation.

Agricultural inputs are those which are used during cultivation viz. labours,
manures, fertilizers, seeds, pesticide, fungicide, etc. The data of all the inputs used on
per hectare basis was estimated and shown in Table 4.7. The table revealed that the
cultivation of organic soybean for one hectare required hired male labour i.e., 31.18
man days, hired female labour 58.48 man days, family male labour 6.56 man days,
family female labour 2.98 man days, bullock labour 5.56 man days, machine labour
22.71 man days. Per hectare requirement of seed, manure, plant protection
(rhizobium, rhizobium + PSB, dashparni ark, NSKE) for organic soybean cultivation
were 74.32 kg, 7.18 tonnes, 0.94 kg, 0.19 lit, 2.5 lit, 9.99 lit, respectively. And the
main produce and by produce obtained from one hectare of organic soybean
cultivation were 18.16 quintal and 0.90 quintal respectively.

Similarly, in case of inorganic soybean cultivation, per hectare requirement of

hired male labour, hired female labour, family male labour, family female labour,
bullock labour and machine labour were 34.48 man days, 48.62 man days, 6.24 man
days, 2.39 man days, 3.89 man days and 22.01 man days, respectively were estimated.
Similarly per hectare requirement of seed, manure, plant protection (pesticide &
fungicide) for inorganic soybean cultivation were 71.99 kg, 2.56 tonnes, 0.94 lit and
0.14 lit, respectively were estimated. And per hectare requirement of fertilizer of N, P
and K were 26.35 kg, 54.33 kg and 47.10 kg respectively were estimated.

49
 Plate 4.3 Dashparni ark

Plate 4.4 Inorganic fertilizers

Table 4.7: Per hectare use of physical input and output in organic and inorganic
soybean production.

Sr. No. Particulars Unit Organic Inorganic

INPUT
1 Hired human labour
Male man day 31.18 34.48
Female man day 58.48 48.62
2 Family human labour
Male man day 6.56 6.24
Female man day 2.98 2.39
3 Bullock labour pair day 5.56 3.89
4 Machine labour hrs 22.71 22.01
5 Seed kg 74.32 71.99
6 Manures t 7.18 2.56
7 Fertilizers
N kg - 26.35
P kg - 54.33
K kg - 47.10
8 Plant protection
Pesticide lit - 0.94
Fungicide lit - 0.14
Rhizobium kg 0.94 -
Rhizobium + PSB lit 0.19 -
Dashparni ark - 2.51 -
NSKE - 9.99 -
OUTPUT
9 Main produce q 18.16 18.87
10 By produce q 0.90 1.25

50
4.3.3 Per hectare cost of cultivation of organic and inorganic soybean cultivation.

Per hectare cost of cultivation of organic and inorganic soybean is calculated

and presented in Table 4.8. Table revealed that the total cost of cultivation per hectare
of organic soybean is ₹110371.98 out of which the rental value was found to be
highest 27.66 per cent followed by machine labour 14.40 per cent and hired male
labour 10.13 per cent. The cost of depreciation on capital assets, dashparni ark and
family male labour was accounted 7.64 per cent, 0.80 per cent and 1.65 per cent,
respectively.

The total cost of cultivation per hectare of inorganic soybean is ₹ 94710.7 out
of which the rental value was found to be 19.69 per cent followed by machine labour
16.27 per cent, and hired male labour 12.74 per cent. The cost of depreciation on
capital assets, family male labour and potassium was accounted 6.91 per cent, 1.78
per cent and 1.15 per cent respectively.

Hence, it is concluded that the cost of cultivation of organic soybean was more
than that of inorganic soybean.

51
 110371.98
120000 108032.41

92612.21 94710.7
100000

73184.06
70744.09
80000

60000

40000

20000

0
Cost A Cost B Cost C
Inorganic Organic

Fig. 4.3: Per hectare cost of cultivation of Inorganic and Organic

Soybean.
Table 4.8 Per hectare cost of cultivation of organic and inorganic soybean
cultivation

Sr. Particulars Unit Organic Inorganic

No.
Amount (₹) Per cent Amount (₹) Per cent
1 Hired labour
Male man day 11176.30 10.13 12068.18 12.74
Female 9827.88 8.90 8299.49 8.76
2 Bullock pair pair day 4444.15 4.03 4307.07 4.56
3 Machine power hrs 15899 14.40 15414.14 16.27
4 Seed kg 7991.11 7.24 7864.65 8.30
5 Manure t 9829.75 8.91 5378.79 5.68
6 Fertilizers
N kg - - 401.05 0.42
P kg - - 3735.19 3.94
K kg - - 1090.84 1.15
7 Plant protection
Pesticide lit - - 1497.27 1.58
Fungicide lit - - 206.01 0.22
Rhizobium kg 113.38 0.10 - -
Rhizobium + PSB lit 94.25 0.09 - -
Dashparni lit 879.09 0.80 - -
NSKE lit 499.53 0.45 - -
8 Land revenue 34 0.03 34 0.04
9 Incidental charges 300 0.27 270 0.29
10 Interest on working 3665.31 3.32 3631.96 3.83
capital @ 6%
11 Depreciation on capital 8430.31 7.64 6545.45 6.91
assets
12 Cost A (Ʃ 1 to 11) 73184.06 66.31 70744.09 74.69
13 Rental value of land 30533.66 27.66 18645.56 19.69
14 Interest on fixed 4314.69 3.91 3222.56 3.40
capital @ 10%
15 Cost B (Ʃ 12 to 14) 108032.41 97.88 92612.21 97.78
16 Family labour
Male man day 1822.26 1.65 1685.86 1.78
Female man day 517.31 0.47 412.63 0.44
17 Cost C (Ʃ 15 to 16) 110371.98 100 94710.7 100

52
4.3.4 Per hectare profitability of organic and inorganic soybean production.

Per hectare profitability of organic and inorganic soybean production were

analyzed in Table 4.9. The table shows that the gross returns obtained from organic
soybean cultivation was ₹ 183405.99. Total cost of cultivation required for organic
soybean cultivation was ₹ 110371.98. The farm business income, family labour
income and net profit obtained from organic soybean production were ₹ 110221.93, ₹
75373.58 and ₹ 73034.01, respectively. Per quintal cost of cultivation required for
organic soybean cultivation was ₹ 5953.81 while output input ratio of organic
soybean cultivation was 1.66.

While the gross returns obtained from inorganic soybean cultivation was ₹
112077.38. Total cost of cultivation required for inorganic soybean cultivation was ₹
94710.7. The farm business income, family labour income and net profit obtained
from inorganic soybean production were ₹ 41333.29, ₹ 19465.17 and ₹ 17366.68,
respectively. Per quintal cost of cultivation required for inorganic soybean cultivation
was ₹ 4860.05 while output input ratio of inorganic soybean cultivation was 1.18.

Hence, it is concluded that per quintal cost of cultivation was more and gross
returns obtained was higher in organic soybean cultivation than that of inorganic
soybean cultivation. And the output input ratio of organic soybean cultivation was
more as compared to inorganic soybean cultivation.

53
 Plate. 4.5 Harvesting of Soybean crop.

Plate. 4.6 Threshing of Soybean crop.

 110221.93
120000

100000
75373.58 73034.01
80000

60000
41333.29

40000
19465.17 17366.68

20000

0
Farm Business Family Labour Net Profit
Income Income
Inorganic Organic

Fig. 4.4: Per hectare Profitability of Inorganic and Organic Soybean.

Table 4.9: Profitability in organic and inorganic soybean production

Sr. No. Particulars Organic Inorganic

Amount (₹) Amount (₹)

1. Returns from a main produce 181155.29 109075.76

2. Returns from a by produce 2250.70 3001.62

Gross return (1+2) 183405.99 112077.38

3. Cost - A 73184.06 70744.09

4. Cost - B 108032.41 92612.21

5. Cost - C 110371.98 94710.7

6. Farm business income 110221.93 41333.29

7. Family labour income 75373.58 19465.17

8. Net profit 73034.01 17366.68

9. Output Input ratio 1.66 1.18

10 Per quintal cost of production 5953.81 4860.05

54
4.4 Comparative marketing cost, marketing margins and price spread in
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean.

While collecting the data about marketing of organic and inorganic soybean, it is
observed that farmers were selling their produce through the following channels;

1. Producer-Wholesaler-Oil processor
2. Producer-Village trader-Wholesaler-Oil processor

The account of per farm production, handling losses and marketed surplus of
organic and inorganic farms is given in table 4.10. It is evident that per farm
production of organic soybean was 18.88 quintals. Out of that handling losses were
3.81 per cent and the total marketable surplus was 18.16 quintals i.e., 96.19 per cent.
The total marketed surplus was 18.16 quintals i.e., 96.16 per cent out of that 55.77 per
cent of organic soybean were marketed through channel I (Producer-Wholesaler-oil
processor) and 40.42 per cent of organic soybean were marketed through Channel II
(Producer-Village trader-Wholesaler-Oil processor).

Per farm production of inorganic soybean was 19.71 quintals. Out of that handling
losses were 4.26 per cent and the total marketable surplus was 18.87 quintals i.e.,
95.74 per cent. The total marketed surplus was 18.87 quintals i.e., 95.74 per cent out
of that 67.07 per cent of inorganic soybean were marketed through channel I
(Producer-Wholesaler-oil processor) and 28.67 per cent of inorganic soybean were
marketed through Channel II (Producer-Village trader-Wholesaler-Oil processor).

Hence, it is concluded that the inorganic soybean had less area with more
production than that of organic soybean that’s why marketed surplus of inorganic
soybean was more than that of organic soybean.

55
 Plate.4.7 Market of Organic Soybean.

Plate.4.8 Market of Inorganic Soybean.

 19.71
18.88 18.87
18.16
20

18

16

14

12

10

4
0.84 0.72
2

0
Total Production Handling Losses Total Marketed
Surplus
Inorganic Organic

Fig. 4.5: Production, Handling losses and Marketed surplus of Inorganic and
Organic Soybean (q).
Table 4.10: Per farm production, handling losses and marketed surplus of
organic and inorganic soybean.

Sr. Particulars Organic Inorganic

No
Quantity Per cent Quantity Per
(q) (q) cent

1 Area (ha) 1.78 - 1.65 -

2 Production (q) 18.88 100 19.71 100

3 Handling losses (q) 0.72 3.81 0.84 4.26

4 Total marketable surplus 18.16 96.19 18.87 95.74

5 Marketed surplus in channel I 10.53 55.77 13.22 67.07
(Producer-Wholesaler-Oil
Processor)
6 Marketed surplus in channel II 7.63 40.42 5.65 28.67
(Producer-Village trader-
Wholesaler-Oil processor)

7 Total marketed surplus 18.16 96.19 18.87 95.74

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

Marketing cost incurred by different intermediaries.

The market intermediaries are the agents which are a link between buyers and
sellers. The number of intermediaries must be less so as to improve marketing. In the
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean, several marketing intermediaries are
involved, which are village traders, wholesaler and oil processors. The marketing
expenditure required by different marketing agencies is shown in tables from table
4.11 to 4.13.

56
4.4.1 Per quintal cost of marketing of organic and inorganic soybean incurred by
Producer.

Per quintal marketing cost incurred by producer was analysed in two channels
and the result presented in Table 4.11.

The table revealed that the marketing cost incurred by the producer in organic
& inorganic soybean of channel I and channel II was ₹ 50.43 and ₹ 47.71
respectively. The losses in channel I and channel II were 39.26 per cent and 33.87 per
cent, respectively. Transportation charges incurred by producer in channel I and
channel II were 31.23 per cent and 36.01 per cent, respectively. The
loading/unloading charges of channel I and channel II 24.21 per cent and 23.58 per
cent, respectively. And weighing charges of channel I and channel II 5.30 per cent and
6.54 per cent, respectively.

However, in inorganic soybean, the total marketing cost incurred by producer

in channel I and channel II was ₹ 48.68 and ₹ 41.98, respectively. The losses incurred
by channel I and channel II were 40.46 per cent and 30.76 per cent, respectively.
Transportation cost incurred by producer in channel I and channel II was 29.30 per
cent and 35.30 per cent, respectively. Loading/unloading charges in channel I and
channel II was 25.23 per cent and 27.27 per cent, respectively. Weighing charges in
channel I and channel II were 5.01 per cent and 6.67 per cent, respectively.

Hence, it is concluded that the total cost incurred by producer in channel I and
channel II were more in organic soybean than that of inorganic soybean.

57
Table 4.11: Per quintal marketing cost of organic and inorganic soybean
incurred by producer. (₹/q)

Sr. Particular Organic Inorganic

No.
Channel I Channel II Channel I Channel II

1 Loading/Unloading 12.21 11.25 12.28 11.45

charges
(24.21) (23.58) (25.23) (27.27)

2 Transportation charges 15.75 17.18 14.27 14.82

(31.23) (36.01) (29.30) (35.30)

3 Weighing charges 2.67 3.12 2.44 2.80

(5.30) (6.54) (5.01) (6.67)

4 Market fee - - - -

5 Losses 19.80 16.16 19.69 12.91

(39.26) (33.87) (40.46) (30.76)

Total cost incurred by 50.43 47.71 48.68 41.98
producer (100) (100) (100) (100)

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

58
4.4.2 Per quintal cost of marketing of organic and inorganic soybean incurred
by Village trader.

Per quintal marketing cost incurred by village trader was analysed in channel-
II of organic and inorganic soybean and presented in Table 4.12.

It is observed that, in case of organic soybean, the total cost incurred by

village trader in channel II was ₹ 42.93. Out of that transportation charges, labour
charges, weighing charges and commission charges were 44.07 per cent, 30.31 per
cent, 18.63 per cent and 6.99 per cent, respectively.

While, in case of inorganic soybean, the total cost incurred by village trader in
channel II was ₹ 38.14. out of that transportation charges, labour charges, weighing
charges and commission charges were 42.31 per cent, 31.47 per cent, 15.73 and 10.49
per cent, respectively.

Hence, it is concluded that the total cost incurred by village trader was more in
organic soybean than that of inorganic soybean.

59
Table 4.12: Per quintal marketing cost of organic and inorganic soybean
incurred by village trader. (₹/q)

Sr. Particulars Organic Inorganic

No.
Channel I Channel II Channel I Channel II
1 Labour charges - 13.01 - 12
(30.31) (31.47)
2 Transportation charges - 18.92 - 16.14
(44.07) (42.31)
3 Weighing charges - 8 - 6
(18.63) (15.73)
4 Commission charges - 3 - 4
(6.99) (10.49)
Total cost incurred - 42.93 - 38.14
by village trader (100) (100)

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

4.4.3 Per quintal cost of marketing of organic and inorganic soybean incurred by
wholesaler.

Per quintal cost of marketing incurred by wholesaler in organic and inorganic

soybean was analysed in both the channels and presented in Table 4.13.

It is observed from the table that in organic soybean, total cost incurred by
wholesaler in channel I was ₹ 54.47 and in channel II it was ₹ 55.16. In channel I, the
other charges, transportation charges, labour charges, market fees, commission
charges, electronic charges and license charges were 27.53 per cent, 23.85 per cent,
21.63 per cent, 12.85 per cent, 6.43 per cent, 5.51 per cent and 2.20 per cent
respectively. In case of channel II, transportation charges, other charges, labour
charges, market fees, commission charges, electronic charges and license charges
were accounted 29.44 per cent, 27.19 per cent, 20.25 per cent, 10.88 per cent, 6.35 per
cent, 4.53 per cent and 1.36 per cent, respectively.

60
 In case of marketing of inorganic soybean, total cost incurred by wholesaler in
channel I and channel II was ₹ 43.42 and ₹ 90.86. In channel I, the other charges,
transportation charges, labour charges, market fees, commission charges, electronic
charges and license charges were 27.64 per cent, 24.69 per cent, 23.49 per cent, 11.52
per cent, 6.91 per cent, 4.61 per cent and 1.15 per cent, respectively.

Hence, it is concluded that the total cost incurred by wholesaler in channel I

was more in organic soybean than that of inorganic soybean. And total cost incurred
by wholesaler in channel II was more in inorganic soybean than that of inorganic
soybean.
Table 4.13: Per quintal marketing cost of organic and inorganic soybean
incurred by wholesaler. (₹/q)

Sr. Particulars Organic Inorganic

No.
Channel I Channel II Channel I Channel II
1 Labour charges 11.78 11.17 10.20 11.41
(21.63) (20.25) (23.49) (12.56)
2 Transportation charges 12.99 16.24 10.72 55.95
(23.85) (29.44) (24.69) (61.58)
3 License charge 1.2 0.75 0.50 0.50
(2.20) (1.36) (1.15) (0.55)
4 Electronic charges 3 2.5 2 2
(5.51) (4.53) (4.61) (2.20)
5 Commission charges 3.5 3.5 3 3
(6.43) (6.35) (6.91) (3.30)
6 Market fees 7 6 5 5
(12.85) (10.88) (11.52) (5.50)
7 Other 15 15 12 13
(27.53) (27.19) (27.64) (14.31)
Total cost incurred by 54.47 55.16 43.42 90.86
wholesaler (100) (100) (100) (100)

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

61
4.4.4 Per quintal marketing cost, marketing margin and price spread of
organic and inorganic soybean in channel I and II.

Per quintal marketing cost, marketing margin and price spread in marketing of
organic and inorganic soybean are calculated and presented in Table 4.14.

It is observed from the table, in organic soybean, net price received by

producer in channel I and channel II was ₹ 10500 and ₹ 9800, respectively. Whereas
the marketing cost incurred by producer in channel I and channel II was ₹ 50.43 and
₹47.71, respectively, marketing cost incurred by village trader in channel II was ₹
42.93 and marketing cost incurred by wholesaler in channel I and channel II was ₹
54.47 and ₹ 55.16, respectively. And the marketing cost in channel I and channel II
was ₹ 104.90 and ₹ 145.80, respectively, market margin in channel I and channel II
was ₹ 395.10 and ₹ 654.20, respectively and price spread in channel I and channel II
was ₹ 500 and ₹ 800, respectively.

While in inorganic soybean, net price received by producer in channel I and

channel II was ₹ 6200 and ₹ 5500, respectively. Whereas the marketing cost incurred
by producer in channel I and channel II was ₹ 48.68 and ₹ 41.98, respectively,
marketing cost incurred by village trader in channel II was ₹ 38.14 and marketing cost
incurred by wholesaler in channel I and channel II was ₹ 43.42 and ₹ 90.86,
respectively. And the marketing cost in channel I and channel II was ₹ 92.10 and ₹
170.98, respectively, market margin in channel I and channel II was ₹ 207.90 and ₹
429.02, respectively and price spread in channel I and channel II was ₹ 300 and ₹ 600,
respectively.

Hence, it is concluded that the net price received by producer in channel I and
channel II was more in organic soybean than that of inorganic soybean.

62
Table 4.14: Per quintal Marketing cost, Market margin and Price spread of
organic and inorganic soybean. (₹/q)

Sr. Particulars Organic Inorganic

No.
Channel I Channel II Channel Channel
I II
1 Net price received by 10500 9800 6200 5500
producer (95.45) (92.45) (95.38) (90.16)
(Producer share in
consumer rupee)
2 Expenses incurred by 50.43 47.71 48.68 41.98
producer (0.46) (0.45) (0.75) (0.69)
3 Price paid by village - 9847.71 - 5541.98
trader (92.90) (90.85)
4 Expenses incurred by - 42.93 - 38.14
village trader (0.41) (0.63)
5 Margin of village trader - 219.20 - 190
(2.07) (3.11)
6 Price paid by wholesaler 10550.43 10119.84 6248.68 5820.12
(95.91) (95.47) (96.13) (95.41)
7 Expenses incurred by 54.47 55.16 43.42 90.86
wholesaler (0.50) (0.52) (0.67) (1.49)
8 Margin of wholesaler 395.10 435.00 207.90 239.02
(3.59) (4.10) (3.20) (3.92)
9 Price paid by oil 11000 10600 6500 6100
processor (100) (100) (100) (100)
10 Marketing cost 104.90 145.80 92.10 170.98
(0.95) (1.38) (1.42) (2.80)
11 Market margin 395.10 654.20 207.90 429.02
(3.59) (6.17) (3.20) (7.03)
12 Price spread 500 800 300 600
(4.55) (7.55) (4.62) (9.84)

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

63
4.5 To document constraints and suggestions therein in the production and
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean.

4.5.1 Constraints faced by organic and inorganic soybean in Production.

An attempt was made in the present investigation to understand the constraints

experienced by the soybean growers. The important constraints expressed by the
soybean growers in production of organic and inorganic soybean were tabulated and
presented in table 4.15.

It is revealed from table 4.15 that, in organic soybean production about 76.67
per cent of soybean growers has facing the problem of of high wages of labour
followed by, 73.33 per cent of lack of knowledge about improved techniques, 71.67
per cent high incidence of disease and pest and 70 per cent inadequate rainfall
respectively.

It is also revealed from table 4.15 that, in inorganic soybean production about
75 per cent of soybean growers has facing the problems of high wages of labour
followed by, 66.67 per cent of high cost of fertilizer, 65 per cent of lack of knowledge
about improved techniques, 63.33 per cent high incidence of disease and pest and
61.67 per cent inadequate rainfall respectively.

64
Table 4.15 Constraints faced by organic and inorganic soybean growers in
Production.

Sr. No. Constraints Organic Inorganic

Frequency Rank Frequency Rank
(N=60) (N=60)
1 High wages of labour 46 I 45 I
(76.67) (75)
2 High cost of fertilizers - - 40 II
(66.67)
3 Lack of knowledge about 44 II 39 III
improved techniques (73.33) (65)
4 High incidence of 43 III 38 IV
diseases and pest (71.67) (63.33)
5 Inadequate rainfall 42 IV 37 V
(70) (61.67)

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

65
90

80 76.67
75
73.33
71.67
70
70 66.67
65
63.33
61.67
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0
High wages of High cost of Lack of High incidence of Inadequate
labour fertilizers knowledge about diseases and rainfall
improved pests
techniques

Inorganic Organic

Fig. 4.6: Constraints faced in production of Inorganic and Organic Soybean

growers.
4.5.2 Constraints faced by organic and inorganic soybean growers in marketing.

It is revealed from table 4.16 that, for marketing of organic soybean about
81.67 per cent of soybean growers has facing the problems of price fluctuation
followed by 78.33 per cent of lack of storage facility, 76.67 per cent of involvement
of middle man, 75 per cent of malpractices exercised by middle man and 71.67 per
cent of distant market respectively.

It is also revealed from table 4.16 that, for marketing of inorganic soybean
about about 80 per cent of soybean growers has facing the problems of price
fluctuation followed by 78.33 per cent of lack of storage facility, 76.67 per cent of
involvement of middle man, 75 per cent of malpractices exercised by middle man and
68.33 per cent of distant market respectively.

Table 4.16: Constraints faced in marketing of organic and inorganic soybean

growers.

Sr. No. Constraints Organic Inorganic

Frequency Rank Frequency Rank
(N=60) (N=60)
1 Price fluctuation 48 I 49 I
(80) (81.67)
2 Lack of storage facility 47 II 47 II
(78.33) (78.33)
3 Involvement of middle man 46 III 46 III
(76.67) (76.67)
4 Malpractices exercised by 45 IV 45 IV
middle man (75) (75)
5 Distant markets 41 V 43 V
(68.33) (71.67)

(Figures in the parenthesis are the percentage to the total)

66
4.5.3 Suggestions given to the organic and inorganic soybean growers in
production and marketing.

Suggestion given by soybean growers with regards of constraints in soybean

cultivation were –

1. Adoption of mechanization.
2. Administration bodies should provide subsidies to the farmers.
3. Organization of awareness campaign to the farmers.
4. Adoption of IPM technique.
5. Provision of water conservation
6. Fixation of MSP by government
7. Storage warehouse structures should be created by government.
8. Direct marketing channel should be preferred.
9. Malpractice should be stopped.
10. Selling of produce in group.

Table 4.17: Suggestions given for production to the organic and inorganic
soybean growers.

Sr. No. Suggestions

1 Adoption of mechanization
2 Administration bodies should provide subsidies to the farmers
3 Organisation of awareness campaign to the farmers
4 Adoption of IPM technique
5 Provision of water conservation
6 Fixation of MSP by government
7 Storage warehouse structures should be created by government
8 Direct marketing channel should be preferred
9 Malpractice should be stopped
10 Selling of produce in group

67
85

81.67
80
80
78.33 78.33
76.67 76.67
75 75
75

71.67

70
68.33

65

60
Price fluctuation Lack of storage Involvement of Malpractices Distant markets
facility middle man exercised by
middle man

Inorganic Organic

Fig. 4.7: Constraints faced in marketing of Inorganic and Organic Soybean

growers.
 CHAPTER-V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER-Ⅴ

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

5.1. Introduction.

4.34 Mha of India's total land area are recognised under the National Program
for Organic Production as of March 31, 2021. (2020-21). This contains 1.68 Mha for
collecting wild harvests and 2.66 Mha of cultivable land. Madhya Pradesh has
certified the most land for organic farming among all the states, followed by
Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and
Karnataka. In India, 3.50 Mha (2020–21) of certified organic products were produced.

District Scenario of Soybean crop

The major soybean growing districts in Maharashtra are Nagpur, Wardha,

Satara, Amravati, Chandrapur, Buldhana, Parbhani and Latur. In 2019–20, the
Wardha district will cover 0.113028 million hectares, produce 0.1474.10 Mha, and
produce 1304.19 kg/ha. In the Vidarbha area, soybean is gradually replacing crops
like cotton, sorghum, pigeon pea, etc. The growing demand for soybeans as a
substitute crop has been one of the most important economic motivations for moving
land from these crops to its production and price trends for the soy crop. (Source-
http:/Krushimaharashtra.gov.in/).

OBJECTIVES

1. To estimate growth rates of area, production, productivity of soybean in

Wardha district of Maharashtra.
2. To study socio-economic characteristics of organic and inorganic soybean
production.
3. To estimate comparative costs, returns and profitability in the production of
organic and inorganic soybean.
4. To workout comparative marketing cost, marketing margins and price spread
in the marketing of organic and inorganic soybean.
68
 5. To document constraints and suggestions therein in the production and
marketing of organic and inorganic soybean production.

5.2. Materials and Methods.

For present study multistage sampling design was adopted for selection of the
district, tehsils, village and respondent farmers. For this study, Soybean was selected
as of their importance in their present situation in the study area. At first stage,
Wardha district was purposively selected because it is known for highest soybean
production district in the western part of Maharashtra region. At second stage, two
tehsils was selected as the soybean growers are more concentrated in these two
tehsils. Those two tehsils were Hinganghat and Samudrapur. At third stage, From
each tehsils three villages were selected randomly. Thus, in all 6 villages from the two
tehsils were selected. Those six villages were Umri, Sultanpur, Kadajana, Ubda,
Wagheda and Barfa. At the fourth stage, 10 farmers from each village was selected
who grow soybean. Thus in all 60 farmers from 6 villages was selected randomly.
These selected 60 farmers were produce both organic and inorganic soybean. Thus the
total sample size was 120 farmers of both organic and inorganic soybean growers.

5.3. Results and Discussion.

1. The area, production and productivity of soybean crop from year 2001-02 to
2020-21 were found to be non-significant.
2. The majority of the organic soybean growers was from middle age adult group
(40-59 years) i.e., 51.67 per cent followed by senior age adult group (60 years
& above) i.e., 30 per cent and adult age group (20-39 years) i.e., 18.33 per
cent. Wherein the majority of the inorganic soybean growers were from both
the middle age group (40-59 years) & senior age group (60 & above) i.e., 45
per cent of each and followed by adult age group (20-39 years) i.e., 10 per
cent.
3. That majority of the organic soybean growers were under graduate i.e., 26.67
per cent, 20 per cent farmers had attained high school, 16.67 per cent
completed higher secondary level of education, 15 per cent growers were from
primary level of education, 10 per cent growers were from secondary level of
69
 education, 8.33 per cent growers completed post-graduation and 3.33 per cent
were illiterate. And in case of inorganic soybean grower’s majority of the
growers completed higher secondary level of education i.e., 28.33 per cent, 20
per cent growers were under graduated, 16.67 per cent growers completed
secondary level of education, 11.67 per cent growers were illiterate, 10 per
cent growers attained high school, 8.33 per cent growers were belonging to
primary level and 5 per cent growers were post graduated.
4. It is observed that in case of organic soybean growers, 44 per cent growers
were having male members, followed by 37.09 per cent female and 18.91 per
cent were childrens. Whereas in inorganic soybean growers 43.42 per cent
were male as well as female followed by 13.16 per cent childrens.
5. It is observed that in organic soybean, 57.36 per cent were male family labours
and 42.64 per cent were female family labours. And of inorganic soybean,
57.55 per cent were male family labours and 42.45 per cent were female
family labours.
6. It is observed that out of organic soybean growers, 40 per cent growers were
having land up to 2 ha, 31.67 per cent growers were having land above 4 ha
and 28.33 per cent growers were having land 2 to 4 ha. Whereas out of
inorganic soybean growers, 60 per cent growers were having land up to 2 ha,
30 per cent growers were having land 2 to 4 ha and 10 per cent growers were
having land above 4 ha.
7. It is observed that majority of the organic soybean growers were having lower
middle income i.e., 46.67 per cent followed by low income i.e., 38.33 per cent
and upper middle income i.e., 15 per cent. While in inorganic soybean growers
majority of growers were having lower middle income i.e., 60 per cent
followed by low income i.e., 40 per cent.
8. It is observed that the majority of organic soybean growers were involved in
the agriculture i.e., 70 per cent followed by service 16.67 per cent and
business 13.33 per cent. While majority of inorganic soybean growers were
involved in agriculture i.e., 73.34 followed by both service 13.33 per cent and
business 13.33 per cent.

70
9. It was observed that organic soybean growers had highest number of poultry
birds 48.94 per cent, followed by number of goats 21.11 per cent, number of
cows 13.42 per cent, number of buffaloes 8.67 per cent and number of bullock
pairs 7.86 per cent. While inorganic soybean growers had highest number of
poultry birds 38.99 per cent, followed by number of goats 21.43 per cent,
number of cows 20.54 per cent, number of bullock pair 12.5 per cent and
number of buffaloes 6.55 per cent.
10. The total land holding of organic soybean growers was 1.78 ha out of which
92.14 per cent area was under irrigation. Hence, the double cropped area was
as same as the irrigated area. Thus, the gross cropped area was 3.42 ha. And
that of total land holding of inorganic soybean growers was 1.65 ha out of
which 96.67 per cent area was under irrigation. Hence, the double cropped
area was as same as the irrigated area. Thus, the gross cropped area was
accounted 3.25 ha.
11. In case of organic soybean cultivation, the land used during kharif season was
1.78 ha in which lone soybean accounted 1.78 ha of area. The land used
during rabi season accounted 0.96 ha of area out of which wheat, chickpea and
sorghum contributes 0.48 ha, 0.32 ha and 0.16 ha, respectively. The land used
during summer season accounted 0.68 ha of area out of which groundnut and
fodder crops contributes 0.5 ha and 0.18 ha respectively. In case of inorganic
soybean cultivation, the land used during kharif season was 1.65 ha in which
lone soybean accounted 1.65 ha of area. The land used during rabi season
accounted 1.18 ha of area out of which wheat, chickpea and sorghum
contributes 0.64 ha, 0.38 ha and 0.16 ha respectively. The land used during
summer season accounted 0.68 ha out of which groundnut and fodder crop
contributes 0.31 ha and 0.12 ha respectively.
12. In case of organic soybean cultivation, net cropped area was 1.78 ha, double
cropped area was 1.64 ha, gross cropped area was 3.42 ha and cropping
intensity was 187.46 per cent. As that of in inorganic soybean cultivation, net
cropped area was 1.65 ha, double cropped area was 1.6 ha, gross cropped area
was 3.25 ha and cropping intensity was 195.34 per cent.

71
13. In organic soybean cultivation, per hectare total hired male labour required are
31.18 man days out of which highest number of hired male required for
manuring i.e., 20.85 per cent followed by spraying (17.90%), ploughing
(15.11%), hoeing (14.75%), threshing (13.15%), harrowing (10.42%), sowing
(5.74%) and harvesting (2.08%). And total hired female labour required are
58.48 man days out of which highest number of hired female required for
weeding i.e., 44.56 per cent followed by harvesting (24.16%), cleaning
(19.36%) and sowing (11.92%). And total family male labour required are
6.56 man days out of which highest number of family male required for
harvesting i.e., (16.62%) followed by cleaning (16.61%), manuring (14.79%),
threshing (13.11%), sowing (12.80%), hoeing (8.54%), harrowing (6.25%),
ploughing (4.42%), spraying (4.27%) and weeding (2.59%). And total family
female labour required are 2.98 man days out of which highest number of
family female labour required for cleaning, weeding, harvesting i.e., 27.18
percent of each. And followed by sowing (18.46%). Total bullock labours
required are 5.56 man days out of which highest number of bullock labours
required for sowing and hoeing i.e., 29.68 per cent each, followed by
ploughing (24.82%) and harrowing (18.52%). Total machine labours required
are 22.71 man days out of which highest number of machine labours required
for ploughing i.e., 35.75 per cent followed by harrowing (23.82%), threshing
(21.58%) and manuring (18.85%).
14. The cultivation of organic soybean for one hectare required hired male labour
i.e., 31.18 man days, hired female labour 58.48 man days, family male labour
6.56 man days, family female labour 2.98 man days, bullock labour 5.56 man
days, machine labour 22.71 man days. Per hectare requirement of seed,
manure, plant protection (rhizobium, rhizobium + PSB, dashparni ark, NSKE)
for organic soybean cultivation were 74.32 kg, 7.18 tonnes, 0.94 kg, 0.19 lit,
2.5 lit, 9.99 lit, respectively. And the main produce and by produce obtained
from one hectare of organic soybean cultivation were 18.16 quintal and 0.90
quintal respectively.
15. In case of inorganic soybean cultivation, per hectare requirement of hired male
labour, hired female labour, family male labour, family female labour, bullock

72
 labour and machine labour were 34.48 man days, 48.62 man days, 6.24 man
days, 2.39 man days, 3.89 man days and 22.01 man days, respectively were
estimated. Similarly per hectare requirement of seed, manure, plant protection
(pesticide & fungicide) for inorganic soybean cultivation were 71.99 kg, 2.56
tonnes, 0.94 lit and 0.14 lit, respectively were estimated. And per hectare
requirement of fertilizer of N, P and K were 26.35 kg, 54.33 kg and 47.10 kg
respectively were estimated.
16. The total cost of cultivation per hectare of organic soybean is ₹110371.98 out
of which the rental value was found to be highest 27.66 per cent followed by
machine labour 14.40 per cent and hired male labour 10.13 per cent. The cost
of depreciation on capital assets, dashparni ark and family male labour was
accounted 7.64 per cent, 0.80 per cent and 1.65 per cent, respectively.
17. The total cost of cultivation per hectare of inorganic soybean is ₹ 94710.7 out
of which the rental value was found to be 19.69 per cent followed by machine
labour 16.27 per cent, and hired male labour 12.74 per cent. The cost of
depreciation on capital assets, family male labour and potassium was
accounted 6.91 per cent, 1.78 per cent and 1.15 per cent respectively.
18. The gross returns obtained from organic soybean cultivation was ₹ 183405.99.
Total cost of cultivation required for organic soybean cultivation was ₹
110371.98. The farm business income, family labour income and net profit
obtained from organic soybean production were ₹ 110221.93, ₹ 75373.58 and
₹ 73034.01, respectively. Per quintal cost of cultivation required for organic
soybean cultivation was ₹ 5953.81 while output input ratio of organic soybean
cultivation was 1.66.
19. While the gross returns obtained from inorganic soybean cultivation was ₹
112077.38. Total cost of cultivation required for inorganic soybean cultivation
was ₹ 94710.7. The farm business income, family labour income and net profit
obtained from inorganic soybean production were ₹ 41333.29, ₹ 19465.17 and
₹ 17366.68, respectively. Per quintal cost of cultivation required for inorganic
soybean cultivation was ₹ 4860.05 while output input ratio of inorganic
soybean cultivation was 1.18.

73
20. Per farm production of organic soybean was 18.88 quintals. Out of that
handling losses were 3.81 per cent and the total marketable surplus was 18.16
quintals i.e., 96.19 per cent. The total marketed surplus was 18.16 quintals i.e.,
96.16 per cent out of that 55.77 per cent of organic soybean were marketed
through channel I (Producer-Wholesaler-oil processor) and 40.42 per cent of
organic soybean were marketed through Channel II (Producer-Village trader-
Wholesaler-Oil processor).
21. Per farm production of inorganic soybean was 19.71 quintals. Out of that
handling losses were 4.26 per cent and the total marketable surplus was 18.87
quintals i.e., 95.74 per cent. The total marketed surplus was 18.87 quintals i.e.,
95.74 per cent out of that 67.07 per cent of inorganic soybean were marketed
through channel I (Producer-Wholesaler-oil processor) and 28.67 per cent of
inorganic soybean were marketed through Channel II (Producer-Village
trader-Wholesaler-Oil processor).
22. Total cost incurred by the producer in organic & inorganic soybean of channel
I and channel II was ₹ 50.43 and ₹ 47.71 respectively. The losses in channel I
and channel II were 39.26 per cent and 33.87 per cent, respectively.
Transportation charges incurred by producer in channel I and channel II were
31.23 per cent and 36.01 per cent, respectively. The loading/unloading charges
of channel I and channel II 24.21 per cent and 23.58 per cent, respectively.
And weighing charges of channel I and channel II 5.30 per cent and 6.54 per
cent, respectively.
23. Total marketing cost incurred by producer in channel I and channel II was ₹
50.43 and ₹47.71, respectively, marketing cost incurred by village trader in
channel II was ₹ 42.93 and marketing cost incurred by wholesaler in channel I
and channel II was ₹ 54.47 and ₹ 55.16, respectively. And the marketing cost
in channel I and channel II was ₹ 104.90 and ₹ 145.80, respectively, market
margin in channel I and channel II was ₹ 395.10 and ₹ 654.20, respectively
and price spread in channel I and channel II was ₹ 500 and ₹ 800, respectively.
24. While in inorganic soybean, net price received by producer in channel I and
channel II was ₹ 6200 and ₹ 5500, respectively. Whereas the marketing cost
incurred by producer in channel I and channel II was ₹ 48.68 and ₹ 41.98,

74
 respectively, marketing cost incurred by village trader in channel II was ₹
38.14 and marketing cost incurred by wholesaler in channel I and channel II
was ₹ 43.42 and ₹ 90.86, respectively. And the marketing cost in channel I and
channel II was ₹ 92.10 and ₹ 170.98, respectively, market margin in channel I
and channel II was ₹ 207.90 and ₹ 429.02, respectively and price spread in
channel I and channel II was ₹ 300 and ₹ 600, respectively.

5.4. Conclusions.

1. It concluded that the area, production and productivity of Soybean crop

from year 2001-02 to 2020-21 in Wardha district were found to be non-
significant.
2. The organic soybean growers was more educated than the inorganic soybean
growers.
3. The family male labour of inorganic soybean growers was more than
organic soybean growers and the family female labour of organic growers
was more than inorganic growers.
4. It is concluded that land holding of inorganic soybean growers has more
area than the organic soybean growers.
5. The annual income of organic soybean growers has more than inorganic
soybean growers.
6. It shows that organic soybean growers had more number of livestock’s than
inorganic soybean growers.
7. The gross cropped area of inorganic soybean growers was less than organic
soybean growers, net cropped area of inorganic soybean growers was less
than organic soybean growers and the cropping intensity of inorganic
soybean growers was more than the organic soybean growers.
8. The total labour and inputs required for inorganic soybean growers was less
as compare to organic soybean growers.
9. It also concluded that, the per hectare cost of cultivation of inorganic
soybean growers was higher than organic soybean growers and the returns
from main produce of organic growers was more than inorganic soybean

75
 growers, the returns from by produce of inorganic growers was more than
organic soybean growers.
10. It is concluded that the organic soybean growers was more profitable than
inorganic soybean growers.
11. It was concluded that the producer share in consumer rupee, total marketing
costs incurred by producer, village trader and wholesaler of organic soybean
growers was higher as compare to the inorganic soybean growers.
12. The price spread of organic soybean growers was more than inorganic
soybean growers.
13. It is also concluded that both inorganic and organic soybean growers face
maximum problems in production and marketing.

5.5 Policy Implications

1. The farmers should be given proper guidance regarding organic cultivation

of soybean crop.
2. An effective application should be designed by the farmers so that they are
able to sell the produce directly.
3. Government should organise campaigns for the farmers for practicing the
proper cultivation of the crops.

76
LITERATURE CITED
 LITERATURE CITED

Agarwal, P.K., Pandey, D., Yadav, P. and O.P. Singh (2014). Trends of Area,
Production and Productivity of Soybean crop in Madhya Pradesh. International
Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 32, 797-800.
Balasubramanyam, D., Mohanapriya, M., Senthilkumar, K., Devaki, K. and Jothika,
K. (2020). Socio economic status of Pig farmers in Tamil Nadu. International
Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 9(4), 656 – 659.
Behera R.K., Patra, S. K., Nayak, B., Mishra, S. K., Das, L., Dash, S. S. and Adhikari,
B. (2021). Perceived constraints and suggestions on implementation of BGREI
programme by Rice growers of Odisha, India. The Pharma Innovation Journal.
10(10), 959-961.
Bhong, M. S., Nagargoje, S. R. and Shelke, R. D. (2019). Cost, Returns and
Profitability of Ber production in Solapur district of Maharashtra. Int. J. Curr.
Microbiol. App. Sci. 8(5), 2464-2467.
Bhosale, P. S., Deorukhakar, A. C., Mali, R. R., Katkar, S. B. and Manerikar, S. S.
(2020). Economics of production of Turmeric in Satara district (M.S.). Int. J.
Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 11, 472-476.
Misra, C. M. (2017). Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Groundnut in
India: Issues & Challenges. Journal of Research in Agriculture and Animal
Science. 4(7), 01-06.
Chavhal, S. H., Katkade, J. L., Kauthekar, P. U., Chavan, R.V. and Sudewad, L. S.
(2014). Marketing cost, marketing margin and price spread of Soybean in
Parbhani district of Maharashtra. International Journal of Commerce and
Business Management. 7(2), 334-337.
Dash, S. S, Behera, R. K. and Padhy, C. (2021). A study on input contribution,
constraints & suggestions involved in the production and marketing of Maize in
Nabarangapur district of Odisha. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 10(9), 491-
494.
Datarkar, S., Pagire, B. V., Pokharkar, V. G. and Darekar, A. (2016). Regional growth
rates in area, production and productivity of Soybean in Maharashtra State.
International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 34(4), 1157-1162.
Gayathri, J. (2018). A trend analysis of Area, Production and Yield of Groundnut in
India. International Journal of Economics. 6(3), 15-21.
Suryawanshi, S. N., Wasnik, S. B., Makesar, A. D. and Walke, R. D. (2020).
Economics of Linseed Marketing in Bhandara district. Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. Sp 9(5), 803-806.

77
Giri, P. R., Kharde, P. B. Chougule, S. B. and Dhadwad, M. B. (2022). Constraints
faced by small farmers in Western Maharashtra. The Pharma Innovation
Journal. 11(1), 62-63.
Hazari, S. and Khobarkar, V. (2015). Production and Marketing of Soybean in Akola
district of Maharashtra: An Economic Analysis. Soybean Research. 13(1), 48-
56.
Jamanal, S. K. and Syed, S. (2017). Socio-economic characteristics of Soybean
growers. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 6(5), 2766-2768.
Janjire, N. B., Nagargoje, S. R. and Gore, M. H. (2018). Costs, returns and
profitability of Sugarcane with drip and surface irrigation in Pune district.
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 7(3), 3594-3596.
Jawanjal, B. G., Naik, V. G., Talathi, J. M., Malave, D. B. and Wagale, S. A. (2015).
Cost, returns and profitability in Sugarcane cultivation in Konkan region (MS).
International Journal of Commerce and Business Management. 8(1), 17-22.
Kantheti, V., Rambabu, P. and Mukunda Rao, B. (2019). Study on constraints faced
by the tenant farmers of Bt cotton and suggestions to overcome those
constraints. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research. 9(6),
77–82.
Kausadikar, H. H., Bandi, S. and Jondhle, R. N. (2018). Marketing of Soybean in
Parbhani district of Maharashtra. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 6, 1517-1521.
Kumar, A., Sahu, K. K. and Sangode, P. K. (2022). Socio-economic analysis of
Soybean growers with reference to cost of cultivation and income in
Rajnandgaon district of Chhattisgarh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 11(3),
27-31.
Kumar, N. S., Joseph, B., Muhammed Jaslam, P. K. (2017). Growth and Instability in
Area, Production and Productivity of Kerala. International Journal of Advance
Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology. 4(1), 446-448.
Kumar, S., Singh, P. K., Rathi, D., Nahatkar, S. B., Choudhary, V. K. and Parey, S.
K. (2019). Growth and Instability in Area, Production, Productivity of Soybean
in India. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 8(2),
278- 288.
Islam, M. A., Abdulla-Al-Asif., Samad, M. A., Rahman, B. M. Md., Rahman, M. H.,
Nima, A. and Sy eda Maksuda Yeasmin. (2014). Socio-Economic Conditions of
the Fish Farmers in Jessore. Bangladesh, International Journal of Business,
Social and Scientific Research. 2(2), 153-160.
Medat, N. R., Singh, N., Kuthe, S. and Gohil, J. (2016). Constraints in Soybean
Production and Marketing faced by the farmers in South Gujarat. Advances in
Life Sciences. 5(18), 7381-7383.

78
Meshram, A. V., Ganvir, B. N. and Nannaware, N. P. (2018). Economics of
Production of Wheat in Wardha District. International Journal of Chemical
Studies. 6(4), 3055-3058.
Naik, S. R. and Maurya, M. K. (2020). An economic analysis of Chickpea to estimate
Marketing channels, Marketing cost, Marketing margin and Price spread in each
channel of distribution in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 9(5), 741-744.
Nannaware, N. P., Dangore, U. T. and Meshram, A. V. (2018). Economics of
Production of Soybean in Wardha district. International Journal of Chemical
Studies. 6(4), 2866-2868.
Parshuramkar, K. H., Darekar, A. S., Datarkar, S. B. and Dangore, U. T. (2014).
Economics of Production of Paddy in Gondia district of Maharashtra.
International Research Journal of Agricultural Economics and Statistics. 5(2),
249-252.
Pathrikar, D. T., Perke, D. S. and More, S. S. (2022). Growth rates in Area,
Production and Productivity of Soybean in Marathwada region of Maharashtra
state. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 11(1), 1009-1012.
Pawar, R. M., Deorukhakar, A. C., Adhale, P. M. and Phuge, S. C. (2016). Cost,
Returns and Profitability of Groundnut cultivation in Raigad district of Konkan
region (M.S.). International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 34(6), 1849-1854.
Perke, D. S., Puri, R. V. and Karnawar, G. H. (2017). Economics of Soybean
production in Hingoli district of Maharashtra. Bull. Env. Pharmacol, Life Sci.
6(3), 106-109.
Perke, D. S., Nagargoje, S. R. and Singarwad, P. S. (2018). Socio-economic
characteristics of selected Soybean growers in Hingoli district of Maharashtra.
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 1, 980-982.
Perke, D. S., Nagargoje, S. R. and Singarwad, P. S. (2018). The economics of
Soybean in Hingoli district of Maharashtra. Journal of Pharmacognosy and
Phytochemistry. 1, 1264-1266
Prajapati, V. S., Singh, R. R. and Chaudhari, G. M. (2016). Socio-economic status of
Livestock farmers of Navasari district of South Gujarat. International Journal of
Agriculture Sciences. 8(13), 1182-1183.
Rathod, B. S., Narvariya, R. K. and Shrivastava, A. (2020). Socio economic status of
Cabbage growers in Khandwa district of Madhya Pradesh. Current Journal of
Applied Science and Technology. 39(35), 116-122.
Reddy, I. V., Wakle, P. K., Koshti, N. R. and Sonkamble, A. M. (2017). Constraints
and suggestions of the Chilli farmers in Bhiwapur Panchayat Samiti of Nagpur
district. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 1, 625-628.
Roy, M. L., Nirmalchandra, Kharbikar, H. L., Joshi, P. and Jethi, R. (2013). Socio-
economic Status of Hill farmers: An Exploration from Almora district in

79
 Uttarakhand. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science
Technology. 4(4), 353-358.
Sanap, D. J., Satpute, T.J., Dudhate, D. J., Babar, A. P. and Nagure, D. V. (2009).
Constraints and Suggestions in Soybean crop under organic and inorganic
system. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 5(2), 608-610.
Shrote, R. V., Mohalkar, S. S. and Bondar, U. S. (2018). Economics of Pomegranate
production in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. Journal of Pharmacognosy
and Phytochemistry. 7(4), 3398-3400.
Singh, H. P., Srivastava, S. C. and Singh, D. (2013). Constraints faced by Soybean
growers of Mandsaur district in Malwa plateau of Madhya Pradesh.
International Journal of Farm Sciences. 3(2), 95-99.
Singh, P. K., Singh, O. P. and Mohkar, M. K. (2019). Marketing cost and efficiency
of Arhar in Chhindwara district of Madhya Pradesh, India. The Pharma
Innovation Journal. 8(4), 197-201.
Sivaraj, P., Phillip, H., Chinnadurai, M., Asokhan and Sathyamoorthi, K. (2017).
Constraints and suggestions of certified organic farmers in practicing organic
farming in Western zone of Tamil Nadu, India. International Journal of Current
Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(3), 1270-1277.
Solanki, M., Srivastava, S. C., Jaulkar, J. M. and Raghuvanshi, J. S. (2014).
Economics of Soybean cultivation and its Marketing pattern in Malwa plateau of
Madhya Pradesh. International Journal of Farm Sciences. 4(2), 192-201.
Tambe, P. C., Gavali, A. V. and Yadav, D. B. (2021). Growth and Instability in Area,
Production and Productivity of Soybean in Maharashtra. International Journal
of Chemical Studies. 9(1), 3393-3395.
Thakur, P. K., Malik, M. S. Singh, B. K. and Oraon, P. R. (2018). Assessment of
Socioeconomic status of Agroforestry farmers in Giridih district, Jharkhand.
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 1, 929-932.
Tiwari, M. and Ramchandra (2022). Price spread and Marketing efficiency of
Soybean Marketing channels in district Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. The Pharma
Innovation Journal. 11(5), 1542-1545.
Wankhade, R. N., Dhanwate, S. P. Bhende, A. M. and Malthane, G. B. (2010).
Marketing of Soybean in Amravati district of Maharashtra. International
Journal of Applied Agricultural Research. 5(2), 215–220.
Yesdhanulla, S. and Aparna, B. (2018). Marketing channels and Price spread of
Tomato in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Pharmacognosy and
Phytochemistry. 7(2), 873-876.

80
APPENDIX
 APPENDIX-I
VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, PARBHANI
College of Agriculture, Latur
Interview Schedule
Title of Research: Comparative economics of organic and inorganic Soybean
production in Wardha district (M.S.)
Name of Student: Dhupe Shruti Bhavikdasji Reg. no.: 2020A/52ML
Name of Research Guide: Prof. S.H. Kamble

SCHEDULE – I
1. General information of the respondents
i. Name:
ii. Village: Taluka: District:
iii. Age:
iv. Mobile no:
v. Education:
vi. Family Information:
Sr. Name Sex Relation Age Education Occupation
No. with farmer

vii. No. of family members working on farm Male: Female: Others

viii. Occupation: Agriculture/ Business/ Service/ Labour
ix. Annual income:
x. Land holding: Total land _____________ha
xi. Land revenue:
xii. Distance of farm (km):

81
 Particulars Hectares Present value (Rs)
Cultivated land
i) irrigated
ii) rainfed
Uncultivated land
Area under soybean crop

2. Cropping pattern:
Kharif Rabi Summer
Crop I R Crop I R Crop I R
(variety) (ha) (ha) (variety) (ha) (ha) (variety) (ha) (ha)

3. Livestock:
Sr. No. Name of livestock No. Age Present value
(Rs)
1. Bullock
2. Cow
3. Buffalo
4. Goat
5. Sheep
6. Poultry
7. Others

4. Machinery
Sr. No. Assets No./Qty Year of Present value
purchase (Rs)
1. Tractor
2. Thresher
3. Electric motor
4. Pump set
5. Power tiller
6. Others

82
5. Sources of irrigation and irrigation structures
Sr. Assets No./ Year of purchase/construction Present
No. Qty. value (Rs)
1. Plough
a) Iron plough
b) wooden plough
2. Tube well
3. Canal
4. Electric motor
5. Shed for electric
motor
6. Pipeline (length)
7. Others

6. Commonly used assets:

Sr.No. Assets/Implements No./Qty. Year of Present
Purchase value (Rs)
1. Plough
a) Iron plough
b) Wooden plough
2. Harrow
3. Seed drill
4. Hoe
5. Bullock cart
6. Sprayer
a) Hand sprayer
b) Foot sprayer
c) Power sprayer
7. Hand tools
a) Weeding hooks
b) Kudali
c) Spade
d) Sickle
8. Others
Total

83
7. Operation wise labour requirement in production: ( Area: __________)
Operation No. Human labour Bullock Machine
Hired Hired Family Family pair power
male female male female (day) (hours)
1. Land
preparation
a) Ploughing
b) Harrowing
c) Clound
crushing
d) Cleaning
e) Manuring
2. Sowing
3. Basal dose
of fertilizer
4. Application
of fertilizer
5. Irrigation
6. Gap filling
7. Thinning
8. Weeding
9. Hoeing
10. Spraying
of pesticide
11. Fungicide
application
12. Harvesting
13. Threshing
Total

Rate of labour:
Hired male/day : Bullock pair/day:
Hired female/day: Machinery/hour :

84
8. Use of physical inputs in inorganic soybean production:
Particulars Unit Qty Rate/unit Value (Rs)
1. Seeds No.
2. Types of Kg.
fertilizers

3. Manures

4. Plant Kg/lit
protection
chemicals

5. Others

9. Yield of inorganic production:

Particulars Quantity Rate Value
Main produce
By produce

10. Use of physical inputs in organic Soybean production:

Particulars Unit Qty. Rate/unit Value (Rs.)
1. Seeds
2. FYM
3. Green manuring
4. Vermicompost
5. Bio fertilizer
6. Bio pesticide
7. Others

85
11. Yield of Organic Soybean
Particulars Quantity Rate Value
Main produce
By produce

12. Constraints and suggestions in organic/inorganic Soybean production:

Constraints:
i) ____________________________________________________________
ii) ____________________________________________________________
iii)____________________________________________________________
iv)____________________________________________________________
Suggestions:
i) ____________________________________________________________
ii) ____________________________________________________________
iii)____________________________________________________________
iv)____________________________________________________________

86
 SCHEDULE-II
MARKETING OF SOYBEAN
1. General information:
Name of market: Distance from village:________km
2. Marketing channels used for soybean:
Sr. No. Channel Name of Distance Quantity Value
market from marketed realized
village (qtl) (Rs)

3. Cost incurred by producer:

Sr. No. Items of cost Channel I Channel II
1. Loading/unloading charges
2. Transportation charges
3. Weighing charges
4. Market fees
5. Losses
6. Others
Total

4. Cost incurred by village trader:

Sr. No. Items of cost Amount (Rs/qtl)
1. Labour charges
2. Transportation charges
3. Weighing charges
4. Commission charges
Total

87
5. Cost incurred by wholesaler;
Sr.No. Items of costs Amount (Rs/qtl)
1. Labour charges
2. Transportation charges
3. License charges
4. Electronic charges
5. Commission charges
6. Market fees
7. Others
Total

6. Constraints and suggestions in organic/inorganic Soybean marketing

Constraints:
i) ____________________________________________________________
ii) ____________________________________________________________
iii)____________________________________________________________
iv)____________________________________________________________
Suggestions:
i) ____________________________________________________________
ii) ____________________________________________________________
iii)____________________________________________________________
iv)____________________________________________________________

88
 APPENDIX - II

Score and rates used in analysis

Particular Rate (Rs/Unit)

1.Seed Organic: ₹ 107.52
Inorganic: ₹ 109.25
2.Labour wages
i) Hired male labour Organic: ₹ 358.44
Inorganic: ₹ 350
ii)Hired female labour Organic: ₹ 168.05
Inorganic: ₹170.70
iii) Manure Organic: ₹ 1369.04
Inorganic: ₹ 2101.08
iv) Bullock pair Organic: ₹ 799.30
Inorganic: ₹ 1107.21
v)Machine labour Organic: ₹ 700.08
Inorganic: ₹ 700.32
3.Fertilizer
i)Nitrogen ₹ 15.22

ii)Phosphorous ₹ 68.75
iii)Potash ₹ 23.16
4.Bio-fertilizer
iii) Rhizobium ₹ 120.61
iv) Rhizobium+PSB ₹ 496.05
v) Dashparni ark ₹ 350.23
vi) NSKE ₹ 50
5.Price of commodities
Main produce of soybean Organic: ₹ 9975.11
Inorganic: ₹ 5780.37
By produce of soybean Organic: ₹ 2250.78
Inorganic: ₹ 2401.30

89
 APPENDIX-III
List of organic and inorganic soybean respondents
Sr. Name of farmers Village Mobile No.
No.
Organic soybean respondents
1 Shankar Bhagat Sultanpur 9158205481
2 Pandhari Bhoyar Sultanpur 8080026003
3 Priti Telhande Sultanpur 7507531931
4 Bhagwan Telhande Sultanpur 9579151286
5 Prakash Bhoyar Sultanpur 7666372818
6 Ratanlal Borkar Sultanpur 9834707057
7 Vaishali Borkar Sultanpur 8390057677
8 Pundalik Bhagat Sultanpur 9158205481
9 Devidas Bhoyar Sultanpur 8767481064
10 Gajanan Nimrat Sultanpur 9529080656
11 Bhaskar Dambhare Umri 9637405431
12 Milind Thool Umri 9356784389
13 Subhash Chele Umri 8007752960
14 Ankush Chele Umri 9763340778
15 Ranjit Chele Umri 9049672832
16 Arun Galande Umri 9699712471
17 Yadav Galande Umri 9685437512
18 Shankar Nishane Umri 7709073741
19 Khushal Dhote Umri 8308695398
20 Shatrughan Chele Umri 8604579685
21 Balasaheb Mokashi Kadajana 9657894330
22 Shankar Nagarale Kadajana 7620926990
23 Anil Vaidya Kadajana 9676469843
24 Dilip Balkhande Kadajana 9542687422
25 Devrao Warghane Kadajana 9766654242
26 Kavdu Kalwade Kadajana 9867543020
27 Gopal Gulghane Kadajana 8008746571
28 Mangesh Gulghane Kadajana 8208369445

90
29 Gajanan Dhote Kadajana 8788189565
30 Devidas Vaidya Kadajana 9764111770
31 Pandhari Vaidya Ubda 7709906391
32 Kishor Lokhande Ubda 7758973950
33 Sanjay Lokhande Ubda 9765897302
34 Dnyaneshwar Kawade Ubda 9637969952
35 Prakash Haygune Ubda 9049967230
36 Sumitra Bende Ubda 9765367976
37 Pradeep Raut Ubda 9834697688
38 Anusaya Nakhale Ubda 9423420396
39 Mahendra Naik Ubda 9098181338
40 Umesh Watmode Ubda 9764534460
41 Bhaskar Wankhede Wagheda 9730754223
43 Gajanan Wasekar Wagheda 9923218880
44 Chandramani Gore Wagheda 7507207735
45 Gangadhar Zade Wagheda 9049756640
46 Pandurang Wankhede Wagheda 7414975832
47 Ankush Mahalle Wagheda 9561001012
48 Dnyaneshwar Dandekar Wagheda 8007689020
49 Sumedh Kamble Wagheda 9403554541
50 Naresh Patil Wagheda 8421068036
51 Ashish Thakare Wagheda 9767383001
52 Sunil Uike Barfa 9527279320
53 Madhukar Thakare Barfa 8469576340
54 Ramkrushna Uike Barfa 9970659690
55 Ravindra Waghmare Barfa 7219647217
56 Bandu Fukat Barfa 9860528737
57 Praful Pusdekar Barfa 8668940403
58 Prabhakar Umre Barfa 7028735540
59 Anil Jawade Barfa 8080278854
60 Sanjay Haygune Barfa 9049331620

91
 Inorganic soybean respondents
1 Gulabraoji Nagarale Umri 9325569858
2 Sanjay Tadas Umri 9960011146
3 Sanjay Dhote Umri 8806954714
4 Ratnakar Zalwade Umri 7559469802
5 Pravin Naik Umri 7798009760
6 Vasudev Pusdekar Umri 7875412414
7 Gangubai Gaikwad Umri 9067309482
8 Kamlabai Pude Umri 7507516740
9 Bapurao Burbure Umri 9405509091
10 Dipak Gawande Umri 9307708639
11 Dinesh Mankar Sultanpur 9823539543
12 Sanjay Kamble Sultanpur 8668409290
13 Ganesh Bhongade Sultanpur 8390089429
14 Shailesh Butle Sultanpur 9970546356
15 Rangubai Burbure Sultanpur 9822804991
16 Arun Patil Sultanpur 9356973870
17 Vitthalrao Dhandare Sultanpur 8766954847
18 Kamlakar Shegaokar Sultanpur 9049969899
19 Maltabai Dhekare Sultanpur 8888996868
20 Arjun Vanjari Sultanpur 9309942794
21 Devrao Tadas Kadajana 8484016773
22 Suraj Tadas Kadajana 8551878751
23 Gajanan Burbure Kadajana 9145628064
24 Dnyaneshwar Tadas Kadajana 9689325389
25 Bandu Burbure Kadajana 9689725857
26 Ajay Burbure Kadajana 9049496453
27 Sanjay Patil Kadajana 9764417282
28 Vishal patil Kadajana 9764517242
29 Vasudev Fulkar Kadajana 8999429493
30 Sudhir Burbure Kadajana 9765701311
31 Shriram Ghorpade Ubda 9096521080
32 Badiram Wankhede Ubda 7498577536

92
33 Kailash Urkude Ubda 9823512457
34 Rahul Dofe Ubda 9765101399
35 Amol Dawande Ubda 8806909719
36 Pramod Kamble Ubda 7507073066
37 Dnyaneshwar Zalwade Ubda 9730081264
38 Sumedh Dakhane Ubda 9765039269
39 Ramdas Wankhede Ubda 9552703243
40 Sudhakar Zalwade Ubda 9527384678
41 Shankar Fulzele Wagheda 8390844145
42 Eknath Tadas Wagheda 9096468440
43 Tarachand Burbure Wagheda 7378814497
44 Abhijeet Dawande Wagheda 7218094874
45 Pramod Garad Wagheda 9921310788
46 Pankaj Patil Wagheda 8551881635
47 Laxmi Zalwade Wagheda 7559469802
48 Palasram Burbure Wagheda 8888320488
49 Pandurang Tadas Wagheda 9960011146
50 Sandip Zamre Wagheda 9158683104
51 Shankar Bhagat Barfa 8459500563
52 Dashrath Bhagat Barfa 9765428753
53 Vasantrao Dhengale Barfa 8668638323
54 Duryodhan Vanjari Barfa 9673617307
55 Navnath Patil Barfa 9420060686
56 Satish Kamble Barfa 9657154133
57 Sanjay Kamble Barfa 8378047240
58 Prakash Zamre Barfa 8265095119
59 Kunal Moon Barfa 7767978086
60 Praful Pusdekar Barfa 8668940403

93
CURRICULUM VITAE