Socio-economic profile and marketing efficiency of Makhana farmers along with the constraints involved in marketing of Makhana in Darbhanga District, Bihar

Introduction

Makhana (Euryale ferox Salisb.) is a globally significant aquatic crop belonging to the family Nymphaeaceae, cultivated predominantly in stagnant water bodies such as ponds, wetlands, and oxbow lakes. India dominates global makhana production, with Bihar alone contributing more than 80 percent of the country's output and approximately 85 percent of world supply. The total area under makhana cultivation in India is estimated at 15,000 hectares, yielding approximately 1,20,000 metric tonnes of seeds annually, which are processed into nearly 40,000 metric tonnes of popped makhana. Nutritionally, makhana is rich in carbohydrates (76.9%), protein (9.7%), and essential minerals including calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and iron, while being extremely low in fat (0.1%). These properties have driven its rising popularity as a health food both domestically and internationally. The global makhana market is valued at approximately USD 35 million, with the Asia-Pacific region accounting for nearly 85 percent of demand. The estimated producer-level value of makhana production in India stands at approximately Rs. 250 crore, while the trade value reaches nearly Rs. 550 crore, indicating a substantial gap that warrants investigation into marketing channels and intermediary roles. Despite its economic importance, the makhana sector faces persistent structural challenges. Farmers, particularly those belonging to small and marginal landholding categories and the fisher community, often lack access to organized markets, modern processing technology, and adequate financial resources. Intermediaries dominate price determination due to their control over storage and processing infrastructure, resulting in farmers receiving only 40-60 percent of the final retail price. The makhana sector, therefore, presents a compelling case for rigorous empirical analysis of both farmer socio-economic conditions and marketing channel efficiency. The present study focuses on two specific research objectives: (i) to assess the socio-economic profile of makhana farmers and processors in the study area, and (ii) to evaluate the marketing efficiency, price spread, marketing margins, and farmer's share in the consumer's rupee across different marketing channels in Darbhanga district of Bihar. Darbhanga was purposively selected as it is one of the leading makhana-producing districts in the state with a significant concentration of traditional cultivation practices www.extensionjournal.com across two major blocks -Keoti and Manigachhi.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study are expected to contribute to a better understanding of the socio-economic conditions of makhana farmers and the efficiency of existing marketing systems. By identifying key constraints and inefficiencies, the study aims to provide actionable recommendations for policymakers, agricultural extension workers, and market intermediaries to improve farmer welfare and supply chain performance. This is particularly relevant in the context of the Government of India's commitment to doubling farmer incomes and expanding agri-export potential.

Review of Literature

A substantial body of literature exists on makhana production economics, marketing, and socio-economic dimensions. This section reviews key studies that inform the present research. Trivedi (2003) [16] documented that makhana has been cultivated in the Mithilanchal region for nearly 200 years, noting that the production process is tedious and labourintensive, with only one-third of total produce recovered as popped makhana. NRCM (2003) confirmed that despite India holding near-monopoly status in makhana production and processing, economic returns to producers and processors remain disproportionately low relative to marketlevel value. Jha and Ahmad emphasized the labour-intensive nature of makhana activities, noting that seed collection and popping require skilled manual labour, while a lack of mechanization significantly increases production costs. Mandal et al. (2010) [8] detailed the agronomic conditions required for makhana cultivation, highlighting the importance of tropical wetland ecosystems and suitable water management for optimal yields. Prakash and Choudhary (2014) [11] analyzed marketing costs and price spread, finding that middlemen capture a significant portion of profit in the makhana supply chain, with producers receiving only about 53 percent of the final consumer price. This finding is central to understanding the economic disempowerment of makhana farmers. Kumar and Jha (2015) studied marketing channels in Darbhanga and Madhubani districts, finding that farmers' heavy dependence on middlemen stems from the absence of organized markets and storage infrastructure. Marketing efficiency was found to be higher in shorter channels where producers transacted directly with processors. Singh et al. (2014) [14] similarly noted that inefficiencies in marketing channels and lack of value chain integration result in substantial income losses for farmers. Pandey and Mishra (2018) [10] reported that farmers located near organized clusters and processing centres receive higher margins compared to those in remote areas, underscoring the importance of market proximity and infrastructure. Jha et al. (2021) [2] confirmed that middlemen dominate price determination due to their control over storage, with farmers generally receiving only 40-50 percent of the final retail price. More recently, Kaur and Singh (2022) [4] found that rising demand for branded and packaged makhana in urban markets has shifted bargaining power towards organized processors, potentially further marginalizing smallholder farmers. Sonu and Jha (2025) [15] identified significant variations in income levels, resource access, and market participation among makhana farmers in Bihar, calling for targeted policy interventions to address socio-economic disparities.

Research Methodology 3.1 Study Area

Darbhanga district of Bihar was purposively selected for the study due to its status as one of the leading makhanaproducing districts in the state. The district covers an area of approximately 2,278 square kilometres, situated in the fertile Mithila region of north Bihar. Its sub-tropical humid climate, rich alluvial soil, and extensive network of ponds, wetlands, and river systems create ideal ecological conditions for makhana cultivation. Annual rainfall in the district ranges from 1,200 to 1,300 mm, replenishing water bodies essential for the crop. From within the district, Keoti and Manigachhi blocks were purposively selected due to their larger makhana pond area and higher concentration of makhana cultivators.

Sampling Design

A multi-stage sampling procedure was employed. In the first stage, Darbhanga district was purposively selected. In the second stage, Keoti and Manigachhi blocks were selected. In the third stage, villages with the highest concentration of makhana cultivation were selected with the assistance of block officials and panchayat records. In the fourth stage, a village-wise list of makhana farmers was prepared, and 10 percent of farmers were selected using simple random sampling, yielding a final sample of 100 farmers. Respondents were stratified into five landholding categories: marginal (less than 1 ha), small (1-2 ha), semimedium (2-4 ha), medium (4-6 ha), and large (above 7 ha). For marketing channel analysis, market intermediaries including village traders, processors, wholesalers, and retailers were also interviewed.

Data Collection

Primary data were collected through semi-structured questionnaires administered personally to farmers and market intermediaries. Separate questionnaires were designed for farmers (covering socio-economic characteristics, cultivation practices, and marketing behaviour) and for market functionaries (covering price data, marketing costs, and margins). Secondary data were gathered from government reports, ICAR publications, official statistical records of the selected blocks, and published research studies.

Analytical Tools

The following analytical tools were employed in the study: • Marketing Efficiency: Shepherd's formula -ME = V/(MC), where V is the value of commodity sold and MC is the total marketing cost. • Price Spread: Calculated as the difference between the consumer price and the price received by the producer.

• Producer's Share in Consumer Rupee: (Producer's price / Consumer's price) × 100. • Marketing Margin: Difference between price received and price paid at each stage of the marketing chain. • Garrett's Ranking Technique: Applied to rank constraints based on percentage position scores assigned by respondents. • Descriptive Statistics: Frequencies, percentages, and tabular presentation for socio-economic profile analysis.

Results and Discussion

Socio-Economic Profile of Makhana Farmers (Objective 1)

The socio-economic profile of the 100 sampled makhana farmers in Darbhanga district was assessed on the basis of age distribution, literacy levels, family size, number of family members engaged in farming, occupation, and annual income. The results are presented below. These findings indicate that makhana farming is predominantly practiced by experienced adult farmers. The relatively low share of youth farmers is a concern, as it may signal declining intergenerational transfer of cultivation knowledge. The skew towards older farmers also suggests potential future labour constraints as the farming population ages. Policy efforts targeted at engaging youth through skill training and financial incentives could improve long-term sustainability of the makhana sector. Table 2 shows that the literacy profile of makhana farmers is diverse. An equal proportion of farmers (35% each) are either illiterate or educated up to the school level (Class 1-10), making these two categories together account for 70 percent of the sample. College-level educated farmers constitute 22 percent, while those with professional or other higher educational qualifications represent 8 percent. The low share of college-educated farmers (30%) is a concern, as it limits access to market information, government schemes, and modern agricultural technologies. Illiteracy among 35 percent of farmers significantly constrains their ability to maintain farm records, access digital market platforms, and participate in formal credit markets. The reliance on traditional and oral methods for knowledge transfer further limits technology adoption. These findings underscore the need for farmer education programmes, mobile-based advisory services, and extension outreach that do not rely exclusively on written communication. The family size data in Table 3 indicate that makhana farmers generally belong to large joint families. A substantial majority of farmers (35%) have a family size of 6 to 8 members, while 29 percent have families with more than 8 members. Together, 64 percent of farmers belong to families with six or more members. Only 17 percent of farmers have families smaller than 4 members. This prevalence of large family sizes is consistent with the sociocultural patterns of the Mithila region and reflects the labour-intensive nature of makhana cultivation, which benefits from larger family labour pools.

Age-Wise Distribution of Sample Farmers

Literacy Levels of Sample Farmers

Family Size of Sample Farmers

Large family sizes also imply higher household consumption requirements and greater dependency ratios, which may limit the investable surplus available for farm improvements. At the same time, a larger family provides a ready source of unpaid family labour for the demanding activities of makhana seed collection, processing, and marketing. This labour availability is an important hidden asset that partially offsets the financial disadvantages faced by marginal and small farmers. 1,00,001 to Rs. 1,50,000 per annum, which accounts for 36 percent of the sample. The Rs. 50,001 to Rs. 1,00,000 category and the Rs. 1,50,001 to Rs. 2,00,000 category each account for 20 percent of farmers, together forming a substantial middle-income segment. Farmers earning above Rs. 2,00,000 per annum constitute only 5 percent of the sample, while those earning below Rs. 50,000 represent 8 percent. The concentration of farmers in the Rs. 1,00,001 to Rs. 1,50,000 income bracket suggests that while makhana farming generates a modest livelihood, it falls short of ensuring economic security or enabling significant capital investment. The data also reveal a strong correlation between landholding size and incomelarge farmers are more represented in higher income categories, while marginal farmers dominate lower income brackets. This underscores the need for income-enhancement strategies specifically targeted at marginal and small makhana farmers through improved market access, value addition support, and supplemental livelihood programmes. 5 presents the major marketing and production constraints faced by makhana farmers, ranked using Garrett's Ranking Technique. The most critical constraint reported by 72 percent of respondents was lack of awareness regarding market knowledge and price information. This significantly impairs farmers' ability to negotiate fair prices and connect with better-paying markets. The second-ranked constraint was the low selling price of makhana, cited by 70 percent of farmers, reflecting the weak bargaining power of producers in the supply chain. Weight loss due to drying during storage and transportation was ranked third (68%), highlighting post-harvest losses as a significant economic challenge. Lack of training services (65%), inadequate government support (64%), absence of suitable improved varieties (62%), and limited technical assistance (60%) were ranked fourth through seventh respectively. These findings collectively point to a systemic deficit in institutional support, infrastructure, and market integration for the makhana sector in the study area.

Annual Income Distribution of Sample Farmers

Constraints Faced by Farmers in Makhana Marketing

Marketing Efficiency, Price Spread and Farmer's Share in Consumer Rupee (Objective 2)

Two distinct marketing channels were identified for makhana in the study area. An analysis of price spread, marketing costs, marketing margins, and producer's share in the consumer's rupee was conducted for each channel. The findings are presented below. 6 presents the detailed price spread for Channel I. In this channel, the producer receives Rs. 420 per kg as net price. After incurring marketing costs of Rs. 15 (packing, packing materials, and miscellaneous charges), the producer sells to the processor at Rs. 435 per kg. processor adds value through loading, transportation, processing, and miscellaneous services at a cost of Rs. 55, and earns a margin of Rs. 25, selling to the wholesaler at Rs. 515 per kg. The wholesaler incurs a marketing cost of Rs. 30 and retains a margin of Rs. 35, selling to the retailer at Rs. 580 per kg. At the retail level, an additional marketing cost of Rs. 25 and a margin of Rs. 45 bring the final consumer price to Rs. 650 per kg. The total marketing cost across all stages amounts to Rs. 125 per kg, and the total price spread (consumer price minus producer net price) is Rs. 230 per kg. The producer's share in the consumer's rupee under Channel I is 64.62 percent, which represents a relatively favourable outcome for the farmer compared to Channel II. This higher share is attributable to the absence of a village trader, which eliminates one layer of margin and associated costs. The comparative analysis clearly establishes that Channel I is more efficient and more remunerative for producers than Channel II. Despite identical consumer prices in both channels, Channel I delivers Rs. 40 more to the producer per kg and reduces total marketing costs by Rs. 25 per kg, resulting in a 6.16 percentage point higher producer share. The introduction of the village trader in Channel II creates an additional margin extraction point that disproportionately reduces producer income without adding proportionate value for the consumer.

Marketing Channels Identified

Price Spread Analysis -Channel II (Producer → Village Trader → Processor → Wholesaler → Retailer → Consumer)

Discussion

The findings of this study reveal a complex picture of socioeconomic vulnerability and marketing inefficiency in the makhana sector of Darbhanga district. The socio-economic profile data highlight that the majority of makhana farmers are middle-aged, with limited formal education, large family sizes, and modest annual incomes concentrated in the Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 range. These characteristics are consistent with broader patterns of agricultural household poverty in North Bihar (Sonu and Jha, 2025; Mandal, 2019) [15, 7] . The educational attainment data are particularly concerning. The high rate of illiteracy (35%) among farmers severely limits their ability to access digital market platforms, government welfare schemes, and formal credit institutions. This creates a vicious cycle where information asymmetry reinforces market dependency on intermediaries. The findings of Prakash and Choudhary (2014) [11] and Jha et al. (2021) [2] are validated in the present studyproducers receive substantially less than the retail consumer price, with the deficit being absorbed by marketing costs and intermediary margins. The marketing channel analysis reveals that Channel I (without a village trader) is more efficient and more equitable than Channel II. The producer's share of 64.62 percent in Channel I, while relatively higher than reported in some earlier studies (Sah et al., 2013 reported 53%) [12] , still leaves significant scope for improvement. The price spread of Rs. 230 per kg in Channel I, rising to Rs. 270 per kg in Channel II, represents the cost of market access failures and the premium captured by intermediaries. From a policy perspective, the analysis of constraints is equally significant. The top-ranked constraintlack of market knowledgespeaks to a fundamental information gap that, if addressed through digital platforms, farmer cooperatives, and mobile advisory services, could substantially improve negotiating capacity and market outcomes. The weight loss during drying (ranked 3rd) points to a critical post-harvest infrastructure deficit that can be addressed through subsidized solar drying facilities and cold storage investments.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

This study provides comprehensive empirical evidence on the socio-economic conditions of makhana farmers and the inefficiencies in makhana marketing channels in Darbhanga district, Bihar. The key conclusions are as follows:

• Most makhana farmers are middle-aged (28% in 40-50 years group), with limited formal education (35% illiterate) and large family sizes (64% have 6+ members), reflecting the traditional agrarian character of the sector. • Annual farm income is predominantly in the Rs.

1,00,001-1,50,000 range (36%), with limited financial surplus for investment in improved inputs or technology. • Channel I is more efficient and more remunerative than Channel II, delivering Rs. 40 more per kg to producers, with a lower price spread (Rs. 230 vs. Rs. 270/kg) and a higher producer share (64.62% vs. 58.46%). • Lack of market knowledge, low selling prices, and postharvest losses are the three most critical constraints faced by makhana farmers in the study area.

Based on these findings, the following policy recommendations are offered:

• Promote Channel I arrangements by facilitating direct producer-to-processor linkages through Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) and contract farming agreements.

References

1. Ali F, Ahmad S. Economics of makhana cultivation in wetland ecosystems of Bihar. Agricultural Economics Review. 2016;30(1):61-70.
2. Jha M, Singh R. Marketing efficiency and price spread analysis in the makhana sector of Bihar. Agricultural Marketing Journal. 2021;39(1):51-60.
3. Jha SN, Prasad S. Post-harvest technology of gorgon nut. In: Mishra RK, Jha V, Dharai PV, editors. Makhana. New Delhi: ICAR; 2003. p. 194-214.
4. Kaur H, Singh J. Consumer demand for flavoured and packaged makhana in urban markets. Agricultural Marketing Research. 2022;45(3):89-102.
5. Pusa, Bihar: Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University; 2018.
6. Kumar L, Gupta VK, Jha BK, Singh IS, Bhatt BP, Singh AK. Status of makhana (Euryale ferox) cultivation in India. Patna: ICAR Eastern Region; 2011. p. 5-37.
7. Mandal B. Socio-economic characteristics and production behaviour of makhana growers in Mithila. Rural Development Review. 2019;16(1):33-47.
8. Mandal RN, Saha GS, Sarangi N. Harvesting and processing of makhana (Euryale ferox Salisb.)-An unique assemblage of traditional knowledge. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 2010;9:684-688.
9. National Research Centre for Makhana. Annual report. Darbhanga (Bihar): National Research Centre for Makhana; 2003.
10. Pandey A, Mishra R. Marketing channels and price spread analysis of makhana in Bihar. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 2018;32(2):87-96.
11. Prakash D, Choudhary N. Marketing costs, price spread and producer's share in makhana in Bihar. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2014;39(2):75-84.
12. Sah KN, Radhika P, Seema. A study on price spread and marketing efficiency of makhana in Madhubani district of Bihar. Journal of Research ANGRAU. 2013;41(4):81-87.
13. Shankar M, Chaudhary N, Singh D. A review on gorgon nut. International Journal of Pharmaceutical & Biological Archives. 2010;1(2):101-107.
14. Singh R, Jha M, Kumar S. Supply chain analysis of makhana in Mithila region. Journal of Agricultural Supply Chain Management. 2020;6(2):77-85.
15. Sonu, Jha. Socio-economic diversity among makhana farmers in Bihar: An empirical assessment. Journal of Rural Studies, Bihar. 2025;18(1):44-58.
16. Trivedi MP. Makhana cultivation in the Mithilanchal region: Historical and economic perspectives. In: Mishra RK, Jha V, Dharai PV, editors. Makhana. New Delhi: ICAR; 2003. p. 1-20.
17. Yadav N, Mishra A. Price spread and marketing efficiency in non-perishable agricultural commodities: A case of makhana. Agricultural Economics and Policy Journal. 2018;22(2):130-139.