Benefit-cost analysis of apiculture farm.
The market of bee products is being expanding in the last years. To make the apicultural farms successful, it requires raw materials, manpower, market but also quality of bee products (K. H. Devkota, 2006). In this context, the aim of the present study is to evaluate the profitability of apicultural farms by implementing the modern management instruments: new technologies, good apicultural practices, and HACCP guide. Benefit-cost analysis was applied to evaluate the apicultural farms of Transylvania. The analyse was made in two situations: 1 st -implementation of the classic methods and 2 nd – implementation of the modern management system (diversification of the products and increase of the quantity). The costs of production were divided in two categories: direct costs and fixed costs.
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Apiculture Enterprise: A Case Study of Jutpani VDC, Chitwan, Nepal
A survey study was conducted to study the benefit-cost analysis of apiculture enterprise in Jutpani VDC, Chitwan district. Data were collected by interviewing randomly selected 18 beekeepers for sample survey. Benefit : Cost (BC) ratio of apiculture was computed by including and excluding the revenue obtained from colony selling. Only 61.11% of beekeepers sold bee colonies for earning income. The study revealed that BC ratios of apiculture were 2.41 and 1.58 in the case of inclusion and exclusion of the income received from the colony selling, respectively. It showed that apiculture industry was running in profit in both cases. In the former case, the BC ratio ranged from 0.97 to 6.22 and about 88.88% beekeepers were in profit. The BC ratio in the later case ranged from 0.43 to 3.41 and about 77.77% beekeepers were in profit. The number of colonies ranged from 2 to 54 with an average of 21.33 colonies per bee farm. In the former case, average annual income was Rs. 70758.33 (US$ 969.29 approximately) per farm and Rs. 49588.31 (US$ 679.29 approximately) in the later case. Likewise, the average income per colony per annum was Rs. 3317.31 (US$ 45.44) and Rs. 1777.65 (US$ 24.35 approximately) in the former and later case, respectively. Key words : Apiculture, benefit-cost ratio, beekeeper 
 
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 27:119-125 (2006)
Impact of Honeybee Pollination on Productivity and Quality of Broccoli Seed under Chitwan Condition
An experiment was conducted in 1999-2000 to study the impact of honeybees on seed production of broccoli under lower sub-tropical terai agro climatic conditions in Chitwan valley of Nepal, using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications and four treatments- Apis cerana pollinated (Acp), Apis mellifera pollinated (Amp), Naturally pollinated (Np) and control (i.e. without insect pollinators). The broccoli cv Calabreses was transplanted on 16 plots at 60 cm x 50 cm spacing, with 24 plants per plot. The study indicated that both A. cerana and A. mellifera significantly increased the percent pollination (siliqua set). A. cerana pollination contributed in 480.11 and 24.21 percent increase in seed set per siliqua over control and Np, where as the percent increase in the seeds set per siliqua caused by A. mellifera pollination were 479.32 and 24.15 over control and Np, respectively. The highest seed yield was obtained from A. mellifera pollination ((425.880 g/plot) followed by A. cerana (417.500 g/plot) and naturally pollinated (332.75 g/plot). The control plot resulted the lowest seed yield (only 13.35 g/plot). Pollination by both bee species in caged plots increased the pod (siliqua) length significantly over control, but not over naturally pollinated plots. A. cerana (3.750 g) and A. mellifera (3.637 g) pollinated seeds had significantly higher seed weight (1000 seed weight) over naturally pollinated seeds (3.207 g). This study demonstrated that bee pollination could significantly improve in both the yield and the quality of seeds in broccoli in Chitwan conditions. 
 
 Keywords: Apis cerana , Apis mellifera , foraging, Brassica oleracea var. italica , pollination 
 
J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2003 24:85-89