Content uploaded by Krishna Timsina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Krishna Timsina on Jul 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
proceedings of the Vh National Horticalture Seminar, t2't 4lune 201 t, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING POTENTIALITY OF CAULIFLOWER
(Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) FROM THE PERSPECTM O['
COMMERCIALIZATION IN TAPLEJUNG DISTRICT OF NEPAL
KP Timsina, K Ghimire, UK Acharya & KP Shrestha
Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)
ABSTRACT
Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) cultivation is popular in Nepal and is profitable to
farmirs. Although the Terai region prodices and sells more cauliflower, hilly region produces has
better value. A"study on produitioi and marketing potentiality of cauliflower from the perspective
of commercialization was conducted in Taplijung district in 2010, where membership of
Commercial Agriculture Alliance (CAA) *ot dittributed. Two hundred twenty seven farmers fro*
four VDCs were selected purposively. The regression analysis showed that incomefrom cauliJlower
"has significant (p<0.01)'contribution to total household income. Around 80 percent farmers wery
buying sLeds frim agro-vets. Most of the farmers were using hybrid varieties such as White Sticl.6,
Snow Crown and Sniw Mestique . irrrog, area used per householdfor cauliflower.-production and
its productivity was found o.iz nopani 1o.ozo ha) and 947 Kg/Ropani (18.94 tonslha) respectively-
ThL cost of produition per Kg iauli/tower was NRs. 5.7. Means of transportation to district
headquartiri was by iuman- labor and its cost ranged fro* .MRs. 2-5 per Kg whereqs
transportation cost io* district headquarters to Birtamod market was rqnged from NP$. 4'6
dependingup on season. Gross margii of cauli/tower per Ropani rryas Nfu. 32,406 (648,120/ha)
oid th, irnipt cost ratio was 6.9. Tie highest average price of cauli/lower (NRs. 35-37.5 per Kg)
ot Birtamod wholesqle market was found in July to October, whereas the highest average price of
cauliflower 6ffu. S0 per Kg) at Tiptejung market was found in March to July. About I 1.90 and
42.10 percent housihold-has bien practicing collective farming and collective morketing,
,urprriiu4y. However, hundred percent respondents were thinking about collective marketing in
frtrre. riidngs revealed that aicess to collection centre, high transportation cost, and insufficient
-lc,owledge on"improve technologies and post harvest handling were the maior problems, whereas
suitabihlty of ciimate, availab-ility of -improved technologt, improving qccess to road and
communication, uniting and thinLing about collective marketing were the maior strengths for
cauli/lower productroi tn the disrrict. Findings indicated that there was high potentiality of
commercial cauli/lower production in Taplejun[ ditt itt; however, it will be necessary to suitably
adjust by creating time and place utility infuture
INTRODUCTION
Horticulture sector contributes about 14 percent to the Total AGDP (Thapa, 1998). The share of horticulture
to the AGDp has been increasing in the recent years. By realizing the importance and role of horticulture,
the App has targeted the growth rate of horticulture GDP to 5.5 percent per annum by 201412015 and growth
rate of vegetabli GDp, iriparticular, to 5.42 percent per annum. Among the horticultural crops, vegetable is
the majoisector to contribute on total hortiiultural GDP. Vegetable crops are cultivated in 232,295 ha of
land in Nepal in 2008. Nepal produces vegetables worth NRs 45 billion annually. And, NRs. 9 billion is
invested in vegetable farming every year. Around 70 percent of Nepal's total household is involved in
vegetable farming. Terai is thi major vegetable growing area with an annual production of 1,437,921 tons,
fol'iowed by hilflegion with 1,261,041tons. Total annual production of vegetables in Nepal vs2.82 million
tons (prasuir, ZOtl). Of the total output,39 percent (1.10 milliontons) is used forhousehold consumption
and e t percent (1.71million tons) for sale. However, of the total vegetable farmers, only 18 percent are
engaged in commercial farming (Prasain, 2011).
Cole crops such as cauliflower and cabbage are the major vegetable crops of Nepal. These are popular
u111ong.ri the farmers and are profitable to vegetables growers (NARC, 2006). In terms of cultivation area,
produ-ction and value, cauliflowir is the number one vegetable crop. A total of 404,580 tons of cauliflower is
produced in33;172 ha of land in the country. Cauliflower worth NRs 6.5 billion is produced annually in
i.tepal (prasain, 20l l). Due to the higher return per unit of land, the area, production and productivity of
t42
Proceedings of the Vh National Honiculture Seminar, 12- 14 June 201 l, Khumalar, Lalitpur, Nepal
vegetable is increasing day by day. In commercializing the agriculture sector, off-season vegetable farming
has played a vital role contributing to the upliftment of the economic status of the farmers residing all agro-
ecological zones of the country. It has been providing regular employment and income to the marginal
farmers and their family members throughout the year there by bringing economic gains (Panta, 2001).
Although the Terai region produces and sells more vegetables, vegetables grown in hilly region have better
value. "The reason behind the difference in value is vegetables in hills are produced during rainy reason
when prices are relatively higher (Prasain,20ll). According to Nepal Agricultural Research Council
(NARC), Cauliflower is commonly an important winter vegetable grown during November-February,
farmers do not fetch good price by selling cauliflower during these months. In order to fetch a good price,
farmers need to produce cauliflower during off-season i.e. from March to November. Taplejung is a hilly
district of Nepal located at Eastern Development Region. Cauliflower is a major vegetable crop producing in
the district (DADO, 2009). About 546 mt of cauliflower has produced from 65 ha of land in Taplejung in
FY 2008/09 (VDD, 2009). In this connection, this study was designed to find out the production and
marketing potentiality of cauliflower from the perspective of commercialization in Taplejung district as a
broad objective, whereas specific objectives were to; find out gross margin, benefit cost ratio of cauliflower
cultivation, contribution of cauliflower to total household income, commercial production and marketing
status, price analysis for different markets along with SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats) analysis of cauliflower cultivation in Taplejung district.
METHODOLOGY
Selection of Study Area and Sample
Taplejung district was selected purposively, as it is only one hilly district (as per national classification) of
Commercial Agriculture Development Project (CADP) areas. Similarly, Fungling, Dokhu, Nangkholang and
Hangdewa Village Development Committees (VDCs) were selected based on distribution of CAA's
membership. Two hundred twenty seven farmers from 4 VDCs were selected purposively for the study.
Tools and Techniques of Data Analysis
The primary and secondary information were collected from the field survey. The collected information
were coded, tabulated and analyzed by using Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) and Microsoft
Excel for calculating gross margin, benefit cost ratio, regression analysis. Moreover, SWOT analysis was
also carried out.
Gross Margin Analysis
Gross margin : Gross return - Total variable cost
6ross rsfuflr
Eemafit - cuntanatryxia =Totsl c.ost [luctrtrd*r.g s'n*S uoriabtre cor8sJ
Analysis of contribution of cauliflowerproduction to HVCs income
The effect of different explanatory variables to dependent variable was assessed by running linear regression
model. The mathematical specification of the model was
Y = a + brXr + bzXz + blXl+ baXa + b5X5
Where, Y= Total household income
o, br, bz....bs: Coefficients to be estimated
Xs= Annual income from cauliflower (NRs.), X2= Annual income from remittance (NRs.)
X3: Annual income from fruits (NRs.), Xa: Annual income from frewood/fodder/grasses (NRs.)
X5: Annual income from cash crops (NRs,), X6: Annual income from cereals (NRs.)
SWOT Analysis
Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threat (SWOT) is a tool used in developing strategies for
intervention. It was used for identiff SWOT of cauliflower crop.
S - What are the sub-sector's internal strengths?
W - What are the sub-sector's internal weaknesses?
O - What external opportunities might move the commodity forward?
T - What external threats might hold the commodityback?
t43
Proceedings of the Vh National Horticulture Seminar, 12-14 June 2Ol l, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepat
RESULTS AND DISCUSSTON
Land holding
The average total land holding in the study area was found 4l ropani, (2.05 ha) where majority of their land
was pakhobari followed by low land and up land. The respondents having minimum and maximum land
holding was found 4.99 ropani (0.25 ha) and 408 ropani (20.25 ha) respectively. In the Taplejung district,
about 20 percent housholds having I to 5 ha of land (DADO, 2009). The farmers having more land holding
might be due to selection of commercial farmers in the district during study. The details are given in Table I
Iable 1. Land holding (Ropania) in study area
Description Low land IUp land 2Pakhobari3 Total land
Average 14
Minimum 1.7
Maximum
720
1.4 1.98 4t
4.99
212 408
It is irrigated and bunded land in Nepal is known as Khetland ,It is unirrigated and unbunded land in
Nepal as Bariland,
'It is a marginal land, normally not used for crop cultivation,a Ropani:500 m2
Cauliflower production and selling
Out of total area, average of 0.52 Ropani (0.026 ha) of land was used for cauliflower cultivation. On an
average 492 Kg of cauliflower was produced per household, out of which only 82 Kg was used for their own
consumption. The results indicated that farmers sold cauliflower up to 2000 Kg per household. The details
are given in Table 2.
Table 2. Area, production and selling pattern of cauliflower per household in the study area
Description
98 98
Area
(Ropani) Production
(Ke) Own use quantity Selling quantity
(Ke) (ke)
Average
Minimum
Maximum
0.52
0.13
1.30
492
60
2500
82
20
500
410
40
2000
*Total income calculated based on the average price of district headquarter @NRs. 40/Kg
** Buying rate of I US$: 72.56 NRs (Nepalese Rupees) as of 2010
Contribution of Cauliflower to Total Annual Income
For the estimates of the effects of different explanatory variables including cauliflower income to the total
annual income, linear regression model was run. The variation covered by the model was satisfactory as *
and adjusted R2 obtained was 0.588 and 0.577 respectively. All the ixplanatory variables *err found
significant (p<0.01)) except annual income from firewood/fodder/grasses. The contribution of cauliflower
(0.181) to total annual income was higher than contribution from fruits (0.129) and cereals (0.147).
However, the contribution from cash crops (0.538) and remittance (0.491) was found higher than
cauliflower. The main reison for higher contribution of cash crop to total household income was due to large
cardamom, turmeric and ginger were the major cash crops in the district (DADO, Taplejung, 2009). The
results revealed that one rupee increment in cauliflower income can contribute to total annual income by
0.181 rupee. The details are given in Table 6.
144
Proceedings of the 7 National Honiculture Seminar, l2-l4fiune 201 l, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal
Tabte 6. Contribution of Cauliflower to Total Annual Household Income
Model Standardized
Coefficients Significancet
value
Beta
Constant
Annual income from cauliflower (NRs.)
Annual income from remiffance (NRs.)
Annual income from fruits CNRs.)
Annual income from firewood/fooder/grasses
(NRs.)
Annual income from cash crops (NRs,)
Annual income from cereals CNRS.)
60473.694
0.181
0.491
0.129
0.009
0.538
0.147
0.000
0.000*
0.000
0.006
0.837
0.000
I1.0
3.8
ll.l
2.7
.20
l 1.5
3.2 0.001
Dependent Variable: Total Annual lncome (NRs.), R square 0.58, adjusted R square 0.57, * significance at lYolevel
Price analysis at different markets
The price of Taplejung market and Birtamod wholesale market was analyzed from June/July, 20A9 to May/
June 2010. From the results it was revealed that price increased from December/January and it rises to NRs.
50 per Kg during March to July except May/June at Taplejung market,. However, at Birtamod market price
rose from June/July to September and gradually decreased until January/February. The price of cauliflower
in Indian markets was higher in the months of June, July, August and September. Due to the lower volume
produced during that period, the price hike can be observed. Hence, Nepal can trap the opportunity in
exporting the Cauliflower during those periods if the price, quantity and the quality of Nepalese product can
be made competitive (Oli, 2009). At the present context, there was no problem of marketing for cauliflower
in Taplejung district. However, when cauliflower production massively scaled up to commercial production
in Taplejung, then, there should create time and place utility as cost of production was relatively higher in
Taplejung than India and Terai districts of Nepal. The details are given in Figure 1.
6()
50
oo
<4()
.;
Euo
.E .u
a- 10
,C,"-t*""*."""-t*"".""-*J::,fl -**.*.***.*o*"o$*.*""
...il*Av&. prl€e at B$tamod Market .-il*Avg. prlcc at Taplcjung tr'l ark@t
Figure l. Price of Cauliflower at Taplejung and Birtamod markets
Collective farming and marketing status
In totality, about I 1.9 percent respondents were practicing collective farming of cauliflower in the study
areas. The percentage of respondents performing collective farming was nil in all VDCs except in Fungling.
The reason for adopting collective farming only in Fungling VDC might be due to implementation of
commercial cauliflower production project supported by CAA in Yanglijung Women Farmers Group at
Fungling. The details are given in Table 7.
Table 7. Status of collective farming of cauliflower by VDCs
Description VDC Name
Fungling Dokhu Hangdewa Nangkholang Total
Yes
No
Total
27 (2t.2)
r00 (78.8)
127 (100)
0 (0)
2s (lo0)
2s (100)
0 (0)
2s (100)
2s (100)
0 (0)
s0 (100)
50 (100)
27 (n.e)
200 (88.1)
227 (100)
Figure in parenthesis indicate percentage
t45
Proceedings of the 7 National Honiculture Seminar, t2-t4 June z7t l, Khumata4 Lalitpur, Nepat
Majority of the respondents (60.6 %) following collective marketing in Fungling VDC followed by Dokhu
(48.0%), Hangdewa (32.0%) and Nangkholang (20.0%).In totality about qiJO percentages of resiondents
were practicing collective marketing. The highest percentage for practicing collective marketing in i'ungling
VDC might be due to implementation of more number of non-infrastruciure related projects iupporteld by
CAA. However, hundred percent respondents were thinking about collective marketing i, neu. ilrture. The
details are given in Table 8 and Table 9.
Table 8. Status of collective market VDC Name
Yes
No
Fun
77 (60.6)
s0 (3e.4)
Dokhu
r2 (48.0) Hanedewa
8 (32.0)
r7 (68.0) l0 (20.0)
40 (80.0)
Total
107 (47.10)
t3 (s2.0
25 (r00) 120 (sz.t)
Total 127 (r00) 2s (100) s0 (r00) 227 (100)
Figure in parenthesis indicate percentage
Table 9. Res ' thinkine towards collective marketi
Descriotion VDCs Name
Fun mDokhu Total
227
100 0.0
227 100
Yes t27 100
No 0(0
Total 127 rL00
Figure in parenthesis indicate percentage
swoT f Cauliflowe Cultiv tion Tr
Hangdewa Nan
25 fi00 50 r00
100 100
25 fi00
100 0.0 50
owtrr or uaulrttower Uultivation in I'aplej uns District
Strengths Weaknesses
. Farmers are thinking for collective
marketing
I Because of good earning from cauliflower
cultivation farmers are interested to
continue its production in increased area
' Road access and transportation facility are
improving.
' New high yielding varieties are available
based on geographical areas
. Improved technology are readily available
for wider adoption
. Traditiorral marketing linkage is still
functioning
r Farmers are being united in groups and
cooperatives to enhance better marketing
. Insuffrcient irrigation facility.
. Quality inputs are not available in time and are very
expensive.
. Farmers lack improved knowledge and training in production
techniques and post harvest handling.
. High transport cost
r No link roads connecting production pockets to road heads.
. Problem of access to credits in large scale
. Insufficient collection centers
. All weather road not available.
. Very weak value chain.
I Production centers are scattered and are far from market
centers.
. Farmers have inadequate information on marketing of
produce.
r Insuffrcient marke!!4gknowledge and awareness.
Opportunities Threats
. There will be improvements in the
Iivelihoods of cauliflower growers.
r Various organizations such as CBOs, NGOs,
and Co-operatives are supporting farmers
for cauliflower cultivation.
r Seasonal export to neighbouring countries
like India.
r Government has categorised fresh
vegetables including cauliflower as a high
value crop in Nepal and policy supports are
available to provide facilities to the farmers
and traders.
. Government is also emphasizing cauliflower
for commercial cultivation.
I DADOs are providing inputs and technical
services to the farmers.
r Lack of appropriate varieties has to confrnE inlwoJr thG
varieties only.
r Not allowable commodity for export to India
! Limited demand in Taplejung district
r Inconsistency in intemal as well as external demand and lack
of coordination between production and marketing.
' Lack of group cohesiveness due to different culture
orientation.
. Big consumption markets are situated far.
' Farmers, particularly small farmers do not want to take risks
against food security and stick to grow traditional food crops.
r Occurrence diseases such as damping off in nursery and
alternaria in standing crop.
' Hybrid seeds, labour and other inputs are not available in time
and of desired quality
t46
Proceedings of the 7 National Honiculture Seminar, l2-l4ilune 201 l, Khumalar, Lalitpur, Nepal
CONCLUSION
The productivity of Cauliflower was higher in the study area than district as well as national levels. The
reason of higher productivity might be due to use of improve varieties in the study areas. The cost of
production per Kg of Cauliflower at farm level was found NRs. 5.7 and the gross income per Ropani of
cauliflower was recorded NRs. 32406.0. The contribution of Cauliflower (p.0.01) to total annual income
was found significant. Results indicated that about 47.1 percentages of respondents were practicing
collective marketing. However, hundred percent respondents were thinking about collective marketing in
future. It was revealed that, atTaplejung market, price increased from December/January and it rises to NRs.
50.0 per Kg at the months of March to July except May/June. However, at Birtamod market price rises from
June/July to September and gradually decreases until JanuarylFebruary. The price of cauliflower in Indian
markets was higher in the months of June, July, August and September. Due to the lower volume produced
during that period, the price hike can be observed. Hence, Nepal can tap the opportunity in exporting the
cauliflower during those periods if the price, quantity and the quality of Nepalese product can be made
competitive. At the present context, there was no problem of marketing for cauliflower in Taplejung district.
However, when cauliflower production massively scaled up to commercial production in Taplejung, then,
there should create time and place utility and reduce cost of production as cost of production was relatively
higher in Taplejung than India and terai districts of Nepal.
EFERENCES
APP (Agriculture Perspective Plan). 1995. Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan Main Document (Final
Report). Agricultural Project Services Centre and John Mellor Associates, Inc. National Planning
Commission, HMGA,I and ADB/IvIanila
ABPSD (Agribusiness Promotion and Statistics Division). 200812009. Statistical information on Nepalese
agriculture. Agri-business promotion and statistics division, Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives, Kathmandu, Nepal.
DADO (District Agriculture Development Office). 2009. A glimpse of annual program and output of
Taplejung district in 2008/09.
VDD (Department of Agriculture/Vegetable Development Directorate). 2009. Annual progress report.
Government of NepaU Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives/ Department of
Agriculture/Vegetable Development Directorate, Khumaltar, Lalitpur.
NARC (Nepal Agricultural Research Council). 2006. A Quarterly Newsletter of Nepal Agricutturat
Research Council (NARC) from April-June 2006. Vol. 13 No.2
Oli, P. 2009. Export Potentiality of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in bordering cities of Uttar Pradesh: A Case
Study. From www.aeripriceneoal.com/newsdoc/20090723132720.ndf. Downloaded on 28th
April,20ll.
Panta, S. 2001. Final Report on Commercial Off-Season Vegetable Production and Marketing Program
(1997-2001). Agro Enterprise Center, FNCCI, Kathamandu, Nepal
Paudel, S. 2005.Abstract publication on Production and marketing efficiency of cauliflower in Makwanpur
district, Nepal. From http:/iwww.iaas.edu.np/journaVvol-30/index.htm. Downloaded on 2l
december,20l0.
Prasai . S. 201l. Nepal produces veggies worth Rs 45 billion annually: Report. Retrived on Feb. 12,20ll
from http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-postl20lll02l15lmoney/nepal-produces-veggies-
worth-rs-45-billion-annually-report/218494.htm1. Downloaded on 28th April, 201l.
Thapa, P. K. 1998. Economic Effrciency of Contractual Vegetable Seed Production in the Eastern Hills of
Nepal. Thesis, Ph. D. University of Philippines Los Banos. 23lp
147
