Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) is the oldest native oilseed crop, boasting the longest cultivation history in India. Commonly known as gingelli, it is referred to as til in Hindi, Punjabi, Assamese, Bengali, and Marathi; tal in Gujarati; nuvvulu and manchi nuvvulu in Telugu; ellu in Tamil, Malayalam, and Kannada; tila or pitratarpana in Sanskrit; and rasi in Odia across different regions of India. Evidence suggests that sesame cultivation dates back over 3,000 years, originating in Africa but spreading widely in the Indian subcontinent and other tropical and subtropical areas. Primarily grown during the kharif (rainy season), sesame is also cultivated in some regions during the rabi and summer seasons. Major sesame-producing countries include India, Myanmar, China, and Sudan. This crop is regarded as a "cash crop" due to high domestic and international demand, with India being a leading exporter.

The area dedicated to sesame farming in India peaked at 20. 83 million hectares in 2010-11, but decreased to 15. 31 million hectares in 2022-23. Production was 84. 7 million tonnes, yielding an average of 553 kg/ha. From 1997-98 to 2022-23, the compound annual growth rates (CAGR) for area and production were 1. 25% and 2. 65%, respectively (Indiastate, 2024). Yield rose from 342 kg/ha to 553 kg/ha during this period, albeit with some fluctuations. Uttar Pradesh had the largest cultivated area is at 5.11 lakh ha, while West Bengal, with a smaller area of  2.58 lakh ha, led in production at 2.61 lakh tonnes due to the highest yield of 1.01 t/ha. Other high-yielding states included Telangana (0.75 t/ha), Gujarat (0.73 t/ha), and Meghalaya (0.94 t/ha), whereas Uttar Pradesh (0.24 t/ha) and Maharashtra (0.22 t/ha) showed low productivity (DEASAGRI 2024).

In Gujarat, summer sesame was grown on 1,239.76. 76 hectares, with Junagadh having the most significant area (293.61 ha), followed by Surendranagar (265.73 ha) and Amreli (144.76 ha). Total production reached 1,069.82. 82 MT, with Junagadh leading at 328. 328.84 MT. The average yield was 862. 93 kg/ha, with the highest yields in Rajkot (1,369 kg/ha), Gir Somnath (1,125 kg/ha), and Junagadh (1,120 kg/ha). In contrast, the lowest yields were noted in Narmada (385 kg/ha) and Chhota Udepur (410 kg/ha) (Directorate of Agriculture, 2023).

Objective

1. To study the socio-economic profile of summer sesame farmers

2. To understand the purchasing behaviour of farmers toward summer sesame seeds

3. To study the cost and return of summer sesame production

4. To identify the marketing of summer sesame in the Tapi district, Gujarat.

Selection of area, respondents and marketing functionaries

From three talukas of Tapi district in South Gujarat, namely Vyara, Songadh, and Valod, a sample of 150 farmers and 20 functionaries of each type associated with the cultivation and marketing of summer sesame was selected. These functionaries were spread across the two main markets in the study area: Vyara and Songadh. The study aims to examine the cost and return, the marketing cost, the margin, and the price spread. It is conducted in 2025. The descriptive statistics were used to study this objective. The Henry Garrett Ranking method was used to study purchasing behaviour.

Garrett’s ranking technique: Garrett’s ranking technique was used to rank the preferences indicated by the respondents across different factors. According to this method, respondents were asked to assign ranks to all factors, and the outcomes of this ranking were converted into score values using the following formula:

Percentage position = 100 (𝑅𝑖𝑗−0.5)

                                              𝑁𝑗

Where Rij = Rank given for the ith variable by jth respondents Nj = Number of variables ranked by jth respondents

With the help of Garrett’s Table, the per cent position is estimated and converted into scores. Then, for each factor, the scores of each individual will be added, and then the total value of scores and the mean values of the scores are calculated. The factors having the highest mean value will be considered to be the most important factor.

Cost and return analysis

The CACP approach was used for computation of cost of production such as Cost A, Cost B, Cost C1, and Cost C2 (Reddy et al., 2018). Cost A included the cost of hiring human labour, tractor charges, seeds/plantlets, manure and fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides, irrigation charges, other paid out expenses, if any, depreciation on farm buildings and small farm tools, the rental value of leased land, interest on working capital, miscellaneous expenses including land revenue, transport charges, etc. Cost B includes Cost A + Rental value of owned land + Interest on fixed capital. Cost C1 = Cost B + Imputed value of family labour and Cost C2 = Cost C1 + Managerial charges (Management charges were calculated at the rate of 10 per cent of Cost C1). The following income measures were calculated for gross income The value of gross income was calculated by considering the total production and price of product. Farm business income = Gross income – Cost A, Family labour income = Gross income – Cost B, Farm investment income = Net income + Rental value of owned land +Interest on own fixed capital, Net income = Gross income – Cost C2, Benefit Cost Ratio = Gross income /Cost C2

Marketing costs, margins and price- spread

To work out the marketing efficiency, modified method of marketing efficiency suggested by Acharya (Acharya and Agarwal 2014) was used.

MME =     FP

                                            (MC + MM)

Marketing cost

Where,

MME= Modified measures of marketing efficiency FP = Price received by farmer

MC = Total marketing cost

The marketing cost was estimated by using following formula:

C = Cf+ Cm1+ Cm2+ Cm3+ + Cmi

Where,

C = Total cost of marketing of the commodity;

Cf = Cost paid by the producer from the time when produce leaves the farm till sells

Cmi = Cost incurred by the ith middleman in the process of buying and selling of the product

Marketing margin

The marketing margin was estimated by using the following formula:

formula: Ami = PRi – (Ppi + Cmi)

Where,

PRi = Sales price Ppi= Purchase price

Cmi=Cost incurred in marketing

Price spread

Price spread refers to the difference between the price paid by the consumer and the price received by the commodity's producer.

PS = RP – PNP

Where,

PS = Price spread

RP = Retailers selling price PNP = Producers' net price

Hypothesis of Study

H0: Summer sesame cultivation is not profitable. H1: Summer sesame cultivation is profitable.

Limitation of the Study

The key limitation of this study was the duration of the research, which lasted for 90 days. A limited number of farmers and intermediaries were selected for the study, so the results may not be replicated in a wider area.

Socio economic profile of summer sesame

The data outlines the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of 150 farmers. Most farmers are middle-aged, between 35 to 50 years old, representing 46.67%. This is followed by older farmers, over 50 years old, at 38.66%, and a smaller group of young farmers, up to 35 years old, at 14.67%. This highlights a predominance of experienced individuals in farming. In terms of education, a majority of respondents possess either primary education (33.33%) or secondary education (30%). Only a small percentage have completed higher education, with both graduation and post-graduation combined making up just 8.01%, while 13.33% are illiterate. When it comes to occupation, 40.67% rely solely on farming, and 30% combine it with animal husbandry. A smaller fraction engages in diverse activities, such as business and services, indicating limited occupational variety. As for land ownership, small farmers comprise 55.33%, medium farmers account for 30.67%, and large farmers represent only 14%, indicating a focus on marginal farming. 

Experience-wise, 41.33% have cultivated for up to 2 years, 39.34% for 2 to 5 years, and only 19.33% for more than 5 years, suggesting a relatively new generation of farmers or a recent reliance on the crop or activity in question. Overall, the profile reveals a moderately educated farming community that largely depends on small-scale farming, with a notable number of recent entrants into agriculture.

Average land holding of farmer and average area under summer sesame cultivation

The data outlines the average landholding sizes and areas designated for sesame cultivation among various categories of farmers. Small farmers typically have an average landholding of 1.26 hectares, with about 0.97 hectares devoted to sesame, reflecting a substantial commitment to this crop despite their limited resources. Medium farmers, on average, possess 3.05 hectares and cultivate sesame on 2.84 hectares, demonstrating an even stronger dedication to sesame production. Meanwhile, large farmers, averaging 5.81 hectares, allocate 4.83 hectares to sesame cultivation.

Table 2: Average land holding of farmer and average area under summer sesame cultivation.

Table 3: Factors affecting the Purchasing behavior of farmers toward summer sesame seeds.

Labour usage differs based on farm size. Medium and large farms utilize significantly more hired labor (47. 28 and 47. 80 man- days, respectively) than small farms (39. 44 man- days). Conversely, family labor contributions diminish with increasing farm size, decreasing from 15. 84 man- days on small farms to 11. 96 man- days on large farms. This trend suggests that smaller farms depend more on family labor, whereas larger farms outsource more work. The average figures show 44. 84 man- days for hired labor and 13.56 for family labor. Regarding mechanization, tractor usage (in hours per hectare) shows a slight increase with farm size, rising from 5. 07 hours/ha on small farms to 6. 10 hours/ha on large farms, indicating that larger holdings engage in more intensive mechanized operations. The overall average for tractor use is 5. 69 hours/ha. Seed consumption remains steady across all farm sizes at around 6. 01 kg, demonstrating a consistent seed rate regardless of land size. Manure application, on the other hand, increases with farm size: small farms apply 2948.60. 60 kg, while large farms use 3166.46. 46 kg, leading to an overall average of 3032.62. 62 kg. Fertilizer usage patterns are varied. The application of nitrogen (N) declines with larger farm sizes, with small farms applying 179. 76 kg compared to 150.63. 63 kg on large farms, possibly indicating efficiency in application or differences in soil nutrients. However, phosphorus (P) application increases from 80. 44 kg on small farms to 99. 88 kg on large ones. No potassium (K) is applied on any farm size, suggesting it may not be necessary for the crops. Sulphur (S) is only applied in medium and large farms (~19. 9 kg), with small farms reporting none, likely due to lack of awareness. 

Table 4: Level of input used by farmers (Per ha).

In summary, larger farms exhibit greater reliance on external inputs (hired labor, machinery, phosphorus, sulphur, and chemicals) and less dependence on family labor, reflecting a more commercial and resource- intensive production approach. In contrast, small farms rely more on family labor and utilize fewer external inputs, likely due to financial limitations or a subsistence- oriented strategy.

Cost of cultivation of summer sesame

The cost structure table provides a comparative analysis of input costs for small, medium, and large farms, along with overall averages. Hired labour is the largest cost component across all farm sizes, accounting for approximately 19–20% of total expenses, followed by tractor fees at around 15%, indicating a significant reliance on both manual and mechanical operations. Seed costs are consistent across all sizes at about 4.5%, implying standardised seed rates irrespective of farm scale. Manure and chemical fertilisers each represent about 8–10%, reflecting the moderate nutrient demands of the crops. Irrigation expenses maintain a steady range of 7.5–8% throughout all sizes, while plant protection chemicals remain just below 5%. Notably, miscellaneous costs rise with farm size, increasing from 2. 86% in small farms to 4. 37% in large ones, potentially due to higher administrative or incidental expenses. Depreciation and fixed capital interest contribute minimally to overall costs (less than 0. 5%), suggesting limited investment in long- term assets. Regarding cost concepts, Cost A (basic variable cost) is highest in large farms at 78. 17% and lowest in small farms at 74. 90%. Cost B, which includes the rental value of owned land and fixed capital interest, comprises about 85% across all categories. Family labor input decreases with farm size 7. 38% for small farms compared to 92% for large ones highlighting the greater dependence on hired labor in larger operations. Cost C1 and C2, which represent imputed family labor and management costs, respectively, consistently account for over 90% of total costs across all farm sizes, underscoring the importance of these implicit costs in overall farm budgeting. Overall, the total cultivation cost rises with farm size: ₹ 42,906 for small farms, ₹ 46,860 for medium farms, and ₹ 48, 573 for large farms. This indicates that while larger operations may introduce certain efficiencies, they also incur proportionately higher absolute costs.

Return measures and benefit cost ratio of summer sesame cultivation

Gross return, net return, and benefit-cost ratio for sesame cultivation are presented in Table 6. The average yield of the main product was 9.03 q/ha for sesame farmers. The highest yield was found in large farms (9.60 q/ha), followed by medium farms (9.17 q/ha) and small farms (8.33 q/ha). Higher yield levels on large farms can be attributed to their optimal level of input utilization, along with the selection and application of appropriate inputs. The average price of the main product was ₹12,219.13 per quintal. Large farmers reported higher prices (₹12,714.29/q), followed by medium farmers (₹12,241.30/q) and small farmers (₹11701.81/q), as they often prefer to sell their produce in nearby APMC markets.

Table 5: Cost of cultivation of summer sesame (₹/ha).

Table 6: Return measures and benefit cost ratio of summer sesame cultivation.

Table 7 shows the farmers' preferences for selling sesame. Among them, 140 farmers sold their produce to traders at the nearby APMC market, while 10 farmers sold their produce to the village trader. The quantity sold to the APMC trader and the village trader was 2269.4 q and 489.5 q respectively. The average price received by farmers from the APMC trader was 11690 ₹, and from the village trader was 12180 ₹.

Table 7: Preference of farmer for selling summer sesame.

Marketing is a very important activity of agricultural commodities as the efficient marketing system will serve the best price to the producer. In the study area, there are two marketing channels were found for marketing of summer sesame.

The marketing channels identified for fresh turmeric in study area were as follows Channel – I: Producer - APMC trader - Wholesaler – Retailer- Consumer Channel – II: Producer - Village trader - Retailer – Consumer

Marketing cost, margin and price spread of sesame is furnished in Table 8.

Table 8: Marketing cost, margin and price spread of summer sesame.

In Channel I, the net price received by the producer was ₹11,690 per quintal, which accounted for 55.67% of the consumer price (₹21,000). The producer incurred a marketing cost of ₹481.87 per quintal (2.29%), which included loading, packaging, transportation, and minor losses. The APMC trader faced additional marketing costs of ₹1,355.65 per quintal (6.46%) for activities such as sorting, weighing, transportation, and market fees. The trader also earned a marketing margin of ₹595.35 per quintal (2.84%). The wholesaler, who further managed the product, incurred marketing costs of ₹1,025.74 per quintal (4.88%) and earned a substantial margin of ₹2,379.26 per quintal (11.33%). At the final level, the retailer incurred a marketing cost of ₹993.74 per quintal (4.73%) and secured the highest margin of ₹2,578.66 per quintal, accounting for 12.28% of the consumer price. The total marketing cost in this channel amounted to ₹3,857 per quintal (18.37%), while the total marketing margin was ₹5,553.27 per quintal (26.44%). The price spread, or difference between the consumer price and the producer’s net income, stood at ₹9,310 per quintal (44.33%), indicating that a significant portion of the consumer price was absorbed by intermediaries.

Conversely, Channel II exhibited a more streamlined and efficient marketing structure. The producer received ₹12,180 per quintal, representing 59.13% of the consumer price (₹20,600), which was higher than in Channel I. In this channel, the producer did not incur direct marketing costs. The village trader, functioning as a combined intermediary, incurred a marketing cost of ₹2,285.85 per quintal (11.10%) and earned a marketing margin of ₹2,297 per quintal (11.15%). The retailer’s cost was ₹980.71 per quintal (4.76%) with a margin of ₹2,858.08 per quintal (13.87%). The total marketing cost in Channel II was lower at ₹3,266.57 per quintal (15.86%), and the total marketing margin was ₹5,155.08 per quintal (25.02%). The price spread was also lower than in Channel I, at ₹8,420 per quintal (40.87%).

Marketing efficiency and price spread of the different marketing channels of summer sesame

Marketing efficiency was determined using Acharya Modified Measures (Acharya and Agrawal, 2014). Marketing efficiency reflects the performance of marketing channels. The marketing efficiency of sesame has been presented differently based on its end-use product.

Marketing efficiency and price spread of different channels are compared in Table 9.