Rahul Kumar RaiPrachi Singh2023-12-042023-12-042023-07-18Prachi Singh {2023} ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PRODUCER’S SURPLUS OF RICE IN BANDA DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH, M.Sc. (Ag.) BANDA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY BANDA-210001, UTTAR PRADESH (INDIA)https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810202137The present study, "Economic Analysis of Producer's Surplus of Rice in Banda district, Uttar Pradesh," was to examine the socio-economic condition, marketable and marketed surplus, marketing channels, and the constraints in marketing of rice. A random sampling method was employed to choose the respondents. Using personal interviews, a sample of 160 farmers and 15 intermediaries were selected from eight villages in Baberu and Naraini block. The study's findings showed that there were more marginal farmers (46.87 per cent) and small farmers (28.75 per cent) than medium farmers (15.62 per cent) and large farmers (8.75 per cent) in the study area. Most farmers have families with 3-5 members on average, whereas medium and large farmers have families with 6-10 members. Most marginal and small farmers earn an average of Rs. 50,000 annually, while medium farmers can earn up to Rs. 15,0000 and large farmers can earn more than Rs. 25,0000 annually. According to the research, only 80.6 per cent of farmers were dependent on agriculture, while 13.75 per cent of farmers were dependent on both agriculture and dairy. Tube wells account for 72.5 per cent of the irrigation in the research region, followed by canals and tube wells, which were used by 21.25 per cent of the farmers. The research revealed that the average production for marginal, small, medium, and large farmers were 14.97, 38.72, 138.72 and 246.71 quintals. The average marketable and marketed surplus was found to be 93.64 and 89.52 quintals. The marketable surplus was lower than the marketed surplus in marginal category of farmers due to distress or forced sale. The farmers in the study region used three channels to sell their rice. With a marketing efficiency of (27.26), channel-III was the most effective marketing channel, followed by channel-II (3.72) and channel-I (2.09). Due to a wider pricing spread and more middlemen, channel-I marketing effectiveness was extremely low. The study found that the main constraints faced by the farmers in the study area were markets at a distant places and higher transportation costs.EnglishThesis