Aim: To describe the production costs, returns and wheat marketing channels reported for small, medium and large farm households in Vidisha district, Madhya Pradesh. Design and Setting: A cross-sectional farm survey covered 90 wheat growers (30 in each farm-size category) in five villages in the Vidisha and Basoda blocks during the 2024–2025 agricultural year. Methods: Per-hectare expense components for each farm-size group were aggregated using standard agricultural cost identities, with an operational 10% charge for farm management. Group-level gross revenue and grain yields were summarized with equal weights across the three-sampled farm-size groups. Producer share, price spread and two marketing-efficiency ratios were calculated from per-quintal channel prices, costs and margins. Results: The respondent-balanced mean wheat yield was 49.95 q/ha, and mean gross revenue was ₹140,556.92/ha. The corresponding Cost C3, net return over C3 and gross-return-to-cost ratio were ₹70,254.70/ha, ₹70,302.22/ha and 2.00, respectively. The direct producer–consumer channel had the highest producer share (96.40%) and the highest Acharya efficiency ratio (26.76); a multi-stage channel involving a processor had the lowest corresponding values (76.07% and 3.18). Conclusion: The descriptive accounting indicates positive wheat-production returns across farm-size groups and comparatively lower recorded marketing costs in the direct channel. These findings are specific to the sampled farmers and channel valuations; differences among marketing channels cannot be interpreted causally without product-stage and transaction-level comparability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sahu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: