International Journal of Social Science & Economic Research
Submit Paper


Hari Krishna Panta

|| ||

Hari Krishna Panta
Assistant professor of Agricultural Economics, Tribhuvan University, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science.

Panta, Hari Krishna. "DETERMINANTS AND COMPARATIVE PROFITABILITY OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN INDO-CHINA ROAD CORRIDOR OF NEPAL." nt. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, vol. 4, no. 4, Apr. 2019, pp. 2548-2560, Accessed Apr. 2019.
Panta, H. (2019, April). DETERMINANTS AND COMPARATIVE PROFITABILITY OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN INDO-CHINA ROAD CORRIDOR OF NEPAL. nt. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, 4(4), 2548-2560. Retrieved from
Panta, H. (2019, April). DETERMINANTS AND COMPARATIVE PROFITABILITY OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN INDO-CHINA ROAD CORRIDOR OF NEPAL. nt. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, 4(4), 2548-2560. Retrieved from


[1]. MOALMC. 2018. Krishi Diary (in Nepali). Ministry of Agriculture, Land Management and Cooperative (MOALMC). Agriculture Information and Communication Centre, Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur.
[2]. MOF. 2018. Economic Survey 2017/18. Ministry of Finance (MOF), Government of Nepal. Singha Durbar, Kathmandu.
[3]. CBS. 2017. Statistical year book of Nepal 2017. Government of Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Thapathali, Kathmandu, Nepal.
[4]. ADS, 2014. Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS). Ministry of Agriculture Development. Singhadurbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
[5]. NPC. 2017. Fourteenth Plan (FY 2016/17-2018/18). National Planning Commission. Government of Nepal. Singhadurbar, Kathmandu. Available: [Retrieved: 02/03/2017].
[6]. Skal. 1997. Skal Biocontrole. Available: [Retrieved: 22/08/2016].
[7]. IFOAM. 2019. The world for organic agriculture 2019. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Organics Agriculture. Available: [Retrieved: 05/03/2019].
[8]. Firth, C. 2002. The use of gross and net martins in the economic analysis of organic farms. HDRA, Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry, CV8 3LG UK. Available: [Retrieved: 17/03/2019].
[9]. IFOAM, 2006. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). Available: [Retrieved: 13/08/2016].
[10]. SARE. 2003. Economics of organic production. Transition to Organic Production. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. Available: [Retrieved 17/03/2019].
[11]. SAN.2003. Transition to organic production. Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). Available: [Retrieved July 18, 2018].
[12]. Dasgupta, S., C. Meisner and D. Wheeler. 2004. Is environmentally-friendly agriculture less profitable for farmers? Evidence on integrated pest management in Bangladesh. Development Research Group, World Bank.
[13]. Crowder, D.W., and J.P. Reganold. 2015. "Financial Competitiveness of Organic Agriculture on a Global Scale." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (24): 7611-16.
[14]. Timsina, J. 2018. Can organic materials supply enough nutrients to achieve food security? Journal of Agriculture and Forestry University. 2: 9-21.
[15]. Amgain, S., Poudel, S.R., Bista, D.R. and Poudel, S.R. 2017. Government intervention on organic fertilizer promotion: A key to enhancing soil health and environment. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Agriculture Development. 18: 131-139.
[16]. Takeshima, H., Adhikari, R.P., Kaphle, B.D., Shivakoti, S. and Kumar, A., 2016. Determinants of chemical fertilizer use in Nepal. Insight based on price responsiveness and income effect. IFPRI discussion paper 01507. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFRI).
[17]. Abdoulaye, T., and J. H. Sanders. 2005. "Stages and Determinants of Fertilizer Use in Semiarid African Agriculture: The Niger Experience." Agricultural Economics 32 (2): 167-179.
[18]. Benson, T. and T. Mogues. 2018. Constraints in the fertilizer supply chain: evidence for fertilizer policy development from three African countries. Food Sec. 10 (6): 1479-available: [Retrieved December 10/12//2018].
[19]. Waller, B.E., Hoy, C.W., Henderson, J.L., Stinner, B. and Welty, C. 1998. Matching innovations with potential users: A case study of potato IPM practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 70: 203-215.
[20]. Adhikari, M. 1994. Determinants of fodder tree adoption in the mid-hills of Nepal. Unpublished (M.Sc. Thesis) submitted to the Graduate School of Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
[21]. Yaron, D., Dinar, A. and Voet, H. 1992. Innovations on family farms: The Nazareth Region in Israel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 361-370

Nepalese economy is dominated by agriculture contributing 28.89% to GDP. Chemical fertilizer is one of the important inputs in agriculture and total fertilizers used in Nepal are imported. Nepal has investing about Rs. 5,000 million every year in fertilizer subsidy but its demand (700,000 MT) have never met (<50% is supplied). In one hand rate of chemical fertilizer use in Nepal is low (about 30t/ha), on the other unbalanced use induced soil and environmental degradation in some commercial pockets. As organic is commonly perceived as less profitable farmers are reluctant to adopt such techniques. To study the relative profitability of organic production and determinants of organic adoption, a study was conducted with 250 farmers selected from Sindhupalchhok, Dhading, Gorkha, Chitwan and Rupandehi districts of Nepal. Study found that except highly commercialized vegetables, many crops can be produced profitably by organic technique. If appropriate system of organic certification and price premium is provided, organic would not be less profitable compared to inorganic one. Organic was found 12% less to 73% more profitable compared to inorganic ones. Unavailability in time and in required quantity was found to be the major bottleneck to farm level availability of chemical fertilizer and poor quality of organic fertilizers was the major problem of organic fertilizer. Household head's education, experience in farming, training and membership on organization have significantly affected the farmers' decision about organic adoption. However, age of household age and land holding associated negatively but insignificantly with organic adoption.