Impact of agricultural subsidy on three cereal crops cultivated in Dailekh district, Nepal

Authors

  • Namuna Khatri College of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture and Forestry University, Kapilakot, Sindhuli, Nepal
  • S.M. Dhungana Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
  • Rosna Devkota College of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture and Forestry University, Kapilakot, Sindhuli, Nepal
  • Prabina Budhathoki College of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Agriculture and Forestry University, Kapilakot, Sindhuli, Nepal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2025.100203

Keywords:

Cereal crops, Farming subsidies, Marginalized farmers, Subsidies access

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the impact of agricultural subsidies on the three primary cereal crops—rice, maize, and wheat in Dailekh district of Karnali province, Nepal and to evaluate the current status of subsidies, their impact on agricultural cultivation, and the variables affecting their allocation. The data was collected through a scheduled of semi-structured surveys and interviews from Narayan municipality of Dailekh district. Data was collected from 100 respondents, among them 60 were subsidy recipients and 40 were non-recipient, using a random sampling technique. A logistic regression model was used to determine the main factors affecting access to subsidies, such as gender, cooperative membership, farm size, and educational attainment. The results showed that the cost NPR 12,283 (90.94$) and NPR 17,625 (130.49$) on land preparation for rice cultivation; NPR 2,737 (20.26$) NPR 9,973 (73.84$) on land preparation for maize cultivation, while NPR 7,010 (51.90$) and NPR 9,417 (69.72$) on land preparation for wheat cultivation was found to be significantly (p<0.01) different among the subsidy recipients and subsidy non-recipient’s farmers, respectively. Similarly, cost of seeds of rice, maize and wheat was also found to be significantly (p<0.05) different between the subsidy recipients and subsidy non-recipient’s farmers. The findings emphasize that targeted and effective subsidy programs should be required to increase the cereal production in Dailekh district of Nepal. Thus, policymakers should concentrate on enhancing marginalized farmer’s access to subsidies, guaranteeing distribution transparency, and launching training programs in order to optimize the advantages of agricultural support programs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bista, D., Dhungel, S., & Adhikari, S. (2018). Status of fertilizer and seed subsidy in Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 17, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3126/aej.v17i0.19854

Fan, S., Thorat, S., & Gulati, A. (2007). Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural India. Agricultural Economics, 37(1), 103-114

GoP (2013). Government of Nepal, Ministry of Agricultural Development, National Seed Board, Seed Quality Control Centre (2013). National Seed Vision 2013-2025 (Seed Sector Development Strategy). Hariharbhawan, Lalitpur, Nepal.

KC., D. Jamarkattel, D., Maraseni, T., Nandwani, D., & Karki, P. (2021). The effects of tunnel technology on crop productivity and livelihood of smallholder farmers in Nepal. Sustainability, 13(14), 1-15.

Mignouna, D. B., Manyon, G. V. M., Rusike, J,, Mutabazi, K. D. S., & Senkondo, E. M. (2011). Determinants of adopting imazapyr-resistant maize technologies and its impact on household income in Western Kenya. AgBioForum, 14(3), 158-163.

Mwangi, M., & Kariuki, S. (2015). Factors determining adoption of new agricultural technology by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 6(5),1-10.

MOALD. (2021). Statistical Year Book. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

MoALD. (2024) Statistical Information on Nepali Agriculture FY 2023/24 Singhadurbar, Kathmandu ; MoALD.

MoF. (2024). Budget speech of fiscal year 2023-24.Kathmandu ; Ministry of Finance.

Paudel, Jayash, & Crago, Christine, L. (2017). Fertilizer Subsidy and Agricultural Productivity: Empirical Evidence from Nepal. Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258464.

Shrestha, M.K. (2021). Agricultural support policy of Nepal: Cases of subsidies. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 1, 16–22. https://doi.org/10.47722/imrj.2001.04

Takeshima, H., Adhikari, R., Dev Kaphle, B., Shivakoti, S., & Kumar, A. (2017). Heterogeneous Returns to Chemical Fertilizer at the Intensive Margins:Insights from Nepal. Food Policy, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.007

Timilsena, K. (2019). Agricultural Subsidies: Are they Effective?" The Himalayan Times, 18 September, 2019, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Tranmer, M., & Elliot, M. J. (2016). Binary Logistic Regression Mark Tranmer Mark Elliot.

Downloads

Published

2025-06-25

How to Cite

Khatri, N., Dhungana, S., Devkota, R., & Budhathoki, P. (2025). Impact of agricultural subsidy on three cereal crops cultivated in Dailekh district, Nepal. Archives of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 10(2), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2025.100203

Issue

Section

Research Articles

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.