iarjalsIARJALSIARJALS2708-5104https://doi.org/10.47310/iarjals.2020.v01i02.015Comparison on the Farm and Household Income Before and After the Adoption of IPM Practice: An Example from Banke and Surkhet District of NepalArjunKhanalPunyaPrasadRegmiK.C. GopalBahadurK.C. DilliBahadurPhD student at Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, NepalVice Chancellor at Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur, Chitwan, NepalProfessor at Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Department of Plant Pathology, NepalProject Manager at CIMMYT, NepalIntegrated pest management (IPM) technology, a package of practices that utilizes natural predators and careful timing of right doses, is one of the most important measures to cut the use of pesticides. It is not surprising evidence that the application of pesticides during the periods has increased substantially along with incredible amount of subsidies. A study on comparison on farm income and household income before and after adoption of IPM technology was conducted in the Banke and Surkhet districts of Nepal. For assessing the comparison, farmers were asked a series of questions during the survey to determine the income before and after IPM adoption. For the comparison Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient were used. This study revealed that that large proportion of the members of the sampled households 27.74% has attained secondary level. Majority of the respondents were Janajati/Indigenous followed by Dalit in the study area 68.40% population were of economically active age. Similarly, 30% of the household has cultivated tomato followed by cauliflower 27%, bitter gourd 17%, cucumber 16% and eggplant 10%. Cucumber is found to be the most profitable vegetable crops in the study area using IPM technology. The farm income of sample households before IPM practice ranged from Rs. 2,150 to Rs. 466,000 and after the adoption of IPM practice, the farm income ranged from Rs. 5,500 to Rs. 499,000. Similarly, the household income of sample households before adoption of IPM practice ranged from Rs. 23,000 to Rs. 647,000 and after the adoption of IPM practice, the household income ranged from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 696,000. The Gini coefficients were higher for farm income 0.55 and household income 0.37 before adoption of IPM practice compared to those for farm income 0.49 and household income 0.31 after adoption of IPM practice. Since the Lorenz curves for both farm and household incomes after IPM practice lie close to the line of equality compared to those before IPM practice, disparity of income was reduced after the provision of IPM practice. Disparity of farm income was reduced significantly compared to household income. Thus, identified comparison of farm and household income before and after adoption of IPM practice could be a source for Agriculture Knowledge Centers, policy makers, researchers and other extension agents to disseminate the IPM technology.