IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zib/zbfabm/v2y2021i1p17-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis Of Cost, Return, Profitability And Labor Use In Mechanized And Traditional Rice Farms In Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Roshan Kumar Yadav

    (Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences (IAAS), TU, Nepal)

  • Punya Prasad Regmi

    (Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal)

  • Devendra Gauchan

    (Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT Nepal)

  • Dilli Bahadur KC

    (CIMMYT Nepal Office, Lalitpur)

  • Gopal Bahadur KC

    (Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences (IAAS), TU, Nepal)

Abstract

The main objective of the study was to assess cost, returns and labor use status between mechanized and traditional rice farms in the Tarai of Nepal. The study was conducted using multistage sampling technique in Jhapa, Sunsari and Bardiya districts covering 274 mechanized and 220 traditional rice farms. Farm budget analysis was used to compute the cost and yield returns from both type of rice farms. The study revealed that the per hectare average human labor used by traditional farm was significantly higher (141.6 man days/hectare) than mechanized rice farm (72.7 man days/per hectare). The per hectare average machine hour used in mechanized farm was 14.0 hours. Number of bullock labor required in traditional rice farm was more than 4 times higher than in mechanized rice farm and was significant. Per hectare total cost of production in mechanized and traditional farms was NRs 85,434.6 and NRs. 95,993.6, respectively and the mean difference was significant. The mechanized rice farm had significantly higher income (NRs. 112711.1/ha) than traditional rice farm (NRs.102064.9/ha). The benefit csot ratio per hectare was significantly higher in mechanized farm (1.32) as compared to traditional(1.06). The variable cost saved in mechanized farm in comparison to traditional rice farm was NRs. 20,366.8 per hectare, which was 24.80 % and was significant. The study indicated that the use of farm machines for rice cultivation would significantly save the human labor cost, reduce cost of production, increase the yield thereby removing drudgery; addressing the labor shortage issues and making mechanized rice farm more profitable.

Suggested Citation

  • Roshan Kumar Yadav & Punya Prasad Regmi & Devendra Gauchan & Dilli Bahadur KC & Gopal Bahadur KC, 2020. "Comparative Analysis Of Cost, Return, Profitability And Labor Use In Mechanized And Traditional Rice Farms In Nepal," Food & Agribusiness Management (FABM), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 2(1), pages 17-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:zib:zbfabm:v:2:y:2021:i:1:p:17-22
    DOI: 10.26480/fabm.01.2021.17.22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://fabm.org.my/download/730/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26480/fabm.01.2021.17.22?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Xiaobing & Yamauchi, Futoshi & Otsuka, Keijiro & Huang, Jikun, 2016. "Wage Growth, Landholding, and Mechanization in Chinese Agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 30-45.
    2. Prabakar, C. & Devi, K. Sita & Selvam, S., 2011. "Labour Scarcity – Its Immensity and Impact on Agriculture," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 24(Conferenc), November.
    3. Uttam Khanal, 2018. "Why are farmers keeping cultivatable lands fallow even though there is food scarcity in Nepal?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(3), pages 603-614, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aryal, Jeetendra Prakash & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Thapa, Ganesh & Simtowe, Franklin, 2021. "Mechanisation of small-scale farms in South Asia: Empirical evidence derived from farm households survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    2. Paudel, Gokul P. & KC, Dilli Bahadur & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Khanal, Narayan P. & Justice, Scott E. & McDonald, Andrew J., 2019. "Smallholder farmers' willingness to pay for scale-appropriate farm mechanization: Evidence from the mid-hills of Nepal," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Paudel, Gokul P. & KC, Dilli Bahadur & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Justice, Scott E. & McDonald, Andrew J., 2019. "Scale-appropriate mechanization impacts on productivity among smallholders: Evidence from rice systems in the mid-hills of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 104-113.
    4. Paudel, Gokul P. & Gartaula, Hom & Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Craufurd, Peter, 2020. "Gender differentiated small-scale farm mechanization in Nepal hills: An application of exogenous switching treatment regression," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    5. Do, Manh Hung & Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Grote, Ulrike, 2023. "Land consolidation, rice production, and agricultural transformation: Evidence from household panel data for Vietnam," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 157-173.
    6. Zhongen Niu & Huimin Yan & Fang Liu, 2020. "Decreasing Cropping Intensity Dominated the Negative Trend of Cropland Productivity in Southern China in 2000–2015," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Shuai Qin & Hong Chen & Tuyen Thi Tran & Haokun Wang, 2022. "Analysis of the Spatial Effect of Capital Misallocation on Agricultural Output—Taking the Main Grain Producing Areas in Northeast China as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Kapri, Kul & Ghimire, Shankar, 2020. "Migration, remittance, and agricultural productivity: Evidence from the Nepal Living Standard Survey," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    9. Yuewen Huo & Songlin Ye & Zhou Wu & Fusuo Zhang & Guohua Mi, 2022. "Barriers to the Development of Agricultural Mechanization in the North and Northeast China Plains: A Farmer Survey," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, February.
    10. Emiko Fukase & Will Martin, 2016. "Who Will Feed China in the 21st Century? Income Growth and Food Demand and Supply in China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 3-23, February.
    11. Soorya Vennila & K. Ramesh, 2019. "Women’s Labour and Sustainable Agriculture," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 385-397, October.
    12. Wang, Yahui & Li, Xiubin & He, Huiyan & Xin, Liangjie & Tan, Minghong, 2020. "How reliable are cultivated land assets as social security for Chinese farmers?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Ping Xue & Xinru Han & Yongchun Wang & Xiudong Wang, 2022. "Can Agricultural Machinery Harvesting Services Reduce Cropland Abandonment? Evidence from Rural China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-15, June.
    14. Xiuhao Quan & Reiner Doluschitz, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Agricultural Machinery by Chinese Maize Farmers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, November.
    15. Shen, Zhiyang & Baležentis, Tomas & Chen, Xueli & Valdmanis, Vivian, 2018. "Green growth and structural change in Chinese agricultural sector during 1997–2014," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-96.
    16. Jiquan Peng & Zihao Zhao & Lili Chen, 2022. "The Impact of High-Standard Farmland Construction Policy on Rural Poverty in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Feng, Lei & Zhang, Minghui & Li, Yixin & Jiang, Yan, 2020. "Satisfaction principle or efficiency principle? Decision-making behavior of peasant households in China’s rural land market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    18. Hassan, Md. Fuad & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Is mechanization in agriculture curse or blessing for the rural labor market in Bangladesh?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304543, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Giller, Ken E. & Andersson, Jens & Delaune, Thomas & Silva, João Vasco & Descheemaeker, Katrien & van de Ven, Gerrie & Schut, Antonius G.T. & van Wijk, Mark & Hammond, Jim & Hochman, Zvi & Taulya, God, 2022. "IFAD Research Series 83: The future of farming: who will produce our food?," IFAD Research Series 322005, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    20. repec:ags:aaea22:335478 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Lin, Wensheng & Huang, Jikun, 2021. "Impacts of agricultural incentive policies on land rental prices: New evidence from China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zib:zbfabm:v:2:y:2021:i:1:p:17-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Zibeline International Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://fabm.org.my/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.