![Open Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextgreen.png)
![Restricted Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextred.png)
![Open Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextgreen.png)
![Open Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltext_open_medium.gif)
![Restricted Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltextred.png)
![Restricted Access](https://i-scholar.in/lib/pkp/templates/images/icons/fulltext_restricted_medium.gif)
Post-Harvest Losses of Alphonso Mango in South Konkan Region-An Economic Analysis
Subscribe/Renew Journal
The research study was carried out in South Konkan region of Maharashtra during year 2017-18 by following the simple random sampling of 100 respondents from 20 villages of two districts namely Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg and 50 intermediaries were selected from study area. The data was elicited through personal interview method. The findings revealed that, the average quantity of alphonso mango passed by the average individual farmers through channel-I was 23.02 q, channel- II, 63.09 q, channel-III 9.16q, channel-IV 5.93q, channel-V 7.89q in the study area. In channel-I the total post-harvest losses in alphonso mango was found to be 27.88 per cent, in channel-II 25.41 per cent, in channel-III 7.07 per cent, in channel-IV, 15.63 per cent and channel-V 22.31 per cent. The average overall post-harvest losses in alphonso mango from field level to marketing level including all marketing operations estimated to 32.29 per cent. In monetary term, at individual farmer level, the total of Rs. 1.37 lakh had been estimated as post-harvest losses, out of that Rs. 0.46 lakh losses were accounted at field level of individual farmer and Rs. 0.91 lakh of losses were accounted at performing various marketing activities. In case of average marketing intermediaries’ level, the total loss in alphonso mango accounted to Rs. 1.99 lakh and out that Rs. 1.53 lakh was loosed during marketing activities.
Keywords
Economic Analysis, Farm, Grading, Mango, Marketing, Post-Harvest Losses.
Subscription
Login to verify subscription
User
Font Size
Information
- Anonymous (2013). Post-harvest profile of mango, Directorate of marketing and Inspection.Ministry of agriculture, Government of India (Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation), BranchHead Office Nagpur (M.S.) India.
- Anonymous (2013). Socio-economic review and district statistical abstract of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg district, 2013-14.
- Anonymous (2017). Horti.Statistics Division dept. of agril. Cooperation and farmer welfare. (Horti. Statistics at Glance, 2017).
- Atteri, B. R. (1994). A study on physical and economic losses and management practices of Dasheri and chausa varieties of mango in new subjimandi of Delhi market. Bihar J. Agric. Mktg., 2: 325-329.
- Chawla, S. (2002).Reducing the post-harvest losses.Agricultural Today, March 2002, pp.14.
- Gajanana, T.M. (2002). Marketing practices and post-harvest loss assessment in Poovan variety of banana in Tamil Nadu. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 15(1): 56-65.
- Gangwar, L.S., Singh, Dinesh and Singh, D.B. (2007). Estimation of post-harvest losses in kinnow mandarin in Punjab using a modified formula.Agric. Econ. Res. Rev.,20 : 315-331.
- Malik, S.H., Kispotta and Saraf (2013). Marketing and postharvest losses of guava in Kaushambi district of Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Agril.Mktg., 27(2) : 41-52.
- Patil, P., Baikar, A. A and Raut, R. A. (2016). Estimation of postharvest losses of mango due to disease. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 24(2): 422-443.
- Sarkar, K. M., Alam, M. M. and Rahman, A. (2011). Postharvest losses in mango value chain. Intl. J. Bio. Res., 10(5): 25-31.
- Sharma, Meenakshi and Singh, Ranveer (2008).Post-harvest losses in fruits and vegetables in Himachal Pradesh. Indian J. Agric.Mktg., 22(1): 14-23.
- Srikanth, H.S., Venkata Reddy, T.N., Prasanna Kumar, P.S. and Ranganath, G. (2015). Study on marketing channels for mango in Srinivasapura taluka of Kolar district. Internat. Res. J. Agric. Eco. & Stat., 6 (2) : 260-266.
![](https://i-scholar.in/public/site/images/abstractview.png)
Abstract Views: 229
![](https://i-scholar.in/public/site/images/pdfview.png)
PDF Views: 1