Socio-Economic Analysis of Grape Export Farmers from Marathwada Region of Maharashtra, India

This study analyzes the socio-economic characteristics, land utilization, cropping patterns, livestock holdings, and the impact of socio-economic factors on grape productivity across different farm sizes among grape export farmers. Data was collected and analyzed from small, medium, and large-scale grape growers. Key findings indicate variations in age groups, educational levels, land use efficiency, and livestock investment, all influencing grape productivity significantly. The socio-economic profile of grape export farmers was assessed across three farm size categories: small, medium, and large. The majority of farmers belonged to the middle-aged group (36–50 years. Educational Status of most farmers were educated, with college graduates being the most prominent. Family Size, Families were categorized as small (1–4 members), medium (5–7), and large (8+). Small family size was most common, This shows a trend toward nuclear family systems among farmers, regardless of landholding size. Occupation, Agriculture was the primary occupation across all sizes Some farmers also engaged in business (20% overall) and services (17.5% overall), reflecting moderate occupational diversification. Land Utilization Pattern, Land utilization among grape growers shows. The average land utilization increases with farm size, with a notable portion under irrigation. Small farmers had 1.5 ha total land, with 93.33% cultivated and 80% irrigated. Medium farmers held 2.81 ha, with 94.66% cultivated and 85.4% irrigated. Large farmers owned 4.6 ha, with 96.95% cultivated and 92.6% irrigated. Overall, grape farmers utilized land efficiently, especially for irrigated farming, crucial for grape cultivation. Cropping Pattern, Cropping patterns varied by season and farm size. Grapes dominated across all sizes due to their high commercial value. Small farms, Grapes covers 58.82% of the area with Cropping intensity 121.42%., Medium farms, Grapes accounted for 54.49% with Cropping intensity 117.29%., Large farms, Grapes constituted 64.65%. Cropping intensity with110.98%., Overall, Grapes covered 54.76% with a cropping intensity of 122.18%. Kharif crops included jowar and soybean, while rabbi crops were wheat and gram. Sugarcane was also a key crop on larger farms. Livestock Holdings, Livestock contributed significantly to farm income and assets Small farms Total livestock value ₹114,550 where bullocks comprised 40.99%. Medium farms Total livestock value ₹143,240 where bullocks 45.30%., Large farms Total livestock value ₹150,900 where bullocks 53.01%. Bullocks were the most valuable livestock across all sizes, reflecting their importance in vineyard operations. 4.5 Impact of Socio-Economic Factors on Grape Productivity, Regression analysis revealed the effect of socio-economic factors on grape productivity, Small farms R² = 0.69. Significant factors are age, capital assets, and livestock (p < 0.05). Medium farms R² = 0.67. Significant are capital assets (p < 0.01), family size (p < 0.05)., Large farms R² = 0.71. Significant factors are capital assets (p < 0.01), landholding, and occupation (p < 0.05). Overall R² = 0.68. Capital investment and livestock were significant (p < 0.01) factors. These findings confirm that investment in assets and livestock positively affects grape productivity, with other socio-economic variables playing supplementary roles.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension Economics & Sociology
Published
2025-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2025/v43i62774
Primary Topic
Agriculture and Rural Development Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Socio-Economic Analysis of Grape Export Farmers from Marathwada Region of Maharashtra, India

A. P. Babar, T. G. Satpute
Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension Economics & Sociology
Agriculture and Rural Development Research
article

Socio-Economic Analysis of Grape Export Farmers from Marathwada Region of Maharashtra, India

A. P. Babar, T. G. Satpute
article en

Abstract

This study analyzes the socio-economic characteristics, land utilization, cropping patterns, livestock holdings, and the impact of socio-economic factors on grape productivity across different farm sizes among grape export farmers. Data was collected and analyzed from small, medium, and large-scale grape growers. Key findings indicate variations in age groups, educational levels, land use efficiency, and livestock investment, all influencing grape productivity significantly. The socio-economic profile of grape export farmers was assessed across three farm size categories: small, medium, and large. The majority of farmers belonged to the middle-aged group (36–50 years. Educational Status of most farmers were educated, with college graduates being the most prominent. Family Size, Families were categorized as small (1–4 members), medium (5–7), and large (8+). Small family size was most common, This shows a trend toward nuclear family systems among farmers, regardless of landholding size. Occupation, Agriculture was the primary occupation across all sizes Some farmers also engaged in business (20% overall) and services (17.5% overall), reflecting moderate occupational diversification. Land Utilization Pattern, Land utilization among grape growers shows. The average land utilization increases with farm size, with a notable portion under irrigation. Small farmers had 1.5 ha total land, with 93.33% cultivated and 80% irrigated. Medium farmers held 2.81 ha, with 94.66% cultivated and 85.4% irrigated. Large farmers owned 4.6 ha, with 96.95% cultivated and 92.6% irrigated. Overall, grape farmers utilized land efficiently, especially for irrigated farming, crucial for grape cultivation. Cropping Pattern, Cropping patterns varied by season and farm size. Grapes dominated across all sizes due to their high commercial value. Small farms, Grapes covers 58.82% of the area with Cropping intensity 121.42%., Medium farms, Grapes accounted for 54.49% with Cropping intensity 117.29%., Large farms, Grapes constituted 64.65%. Cropping intensity with110.98%., Overall, Grapes covered 54.76% with a cropping intensity of 122.18%. Kharif crops included jowar and soybean, while rabbi crops were wheat and gram. Sugarcane was also a key crop on larger farms. Livestock Holdings, Livestock contributed significantly to farm income and assets Small farms Total livestock value ₹114,550 where bullocks comprised 40.99%. Medium farms Total livestock value ₹143,240 where bullocks 45.30%., Large farms Total livestock value ₹150,900 where bullocks 53.01%. Bullocks were the most valuable livestock across all sizes, reflecting their importance in vineyard operations. 4.5 Impact of Socio-Economic Factors on Grape Productivity, Regression analysis revealed the effect of socio-economic factors on grape productivity, Small farms R² = 0.69. Significant factors are age, capital assets, and livestock (p < 0.05). Medium farms R² = 0.67. Significant are capital assets (p < 0.01), family size (p < 0.05)., Large farms R² = 0.71. Significant factors are capital assets (p < 0.01), landholding, and occupation (p < 0.05). Overall R² = 0.68. Capital investment and livestock were significant (p < 0.01) factors. These findings confirm that investment in assets and livestock positively affects grape productivity, with other socio-economic variables playing supplementary roles.

Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension Economics & SociologyVol. 43(6)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Agriculture and Rural Development Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.