We need to think beyond food security and give back to our farmers a sense of income security

1. Strategies for Doubling the Farmers
Income Through Temperate Fruit
Crops
Tawseef Rehman Baba
Ph.D. Fruit Science
Division of Fruit Sciences
S.K. University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology
of Kashmir Shalimar, Srinagar
Topic:

2. Introduction

3. Why doubling the Farmers Income?
Past Strategy For Agriculture
Sector has Focused on Food
Security
Result was 45% Increase /
Person Food Production
Made India not only self-
sufficient in food but also Food
Exporting Country
Result was that farmers income
remained low, which is evident from
the evidence of poverty condition
of the farmer.
The country also witnessed a sharp
increase in the number of farmers
suicidal incidences during 1995 to
2004
losses from
farming
shocks in farm
income
In this context, the goal has been set to how to
double farmers' income by 2022-23
Policy paper, 02-10-2017

4. Doubling of Farmers’ Income
“I wish to double the income of farmers by 2022 when India will
celebrate 75th years of its Independence”
Prime Minister
while addressing farmers rally
at Bareilly (Feb 28, 2016)
Budget 2016-17
“We are grateful to our farmers for being the backbone of the country’s
food security. We need to think beyond food security and give back to our
farmers a sense of income security. Government will, therefore, reorient
its interventions in the farm and non-farm sectors to double the income of
the farmers by 2022.”
Finance Minister Budget Speech, February 29,2016.

5. 29/02/2016
21/06/2017
 To attain that goal, Mr. Modi said the Centre
had adopted a scientific approach to farming and
urged farmers to utilise the various agricultural
initiatives introduced by his government
 Minister for Agriculture, Ghulam Nabi Lone
Hanjura expressed hope that government is
committed to double the income of farmers
in the state by 2022 (At SKUAST-K).

6. NSSO, 2011-13
Farmers Households with Income Below Poverty Line
Key Findings.
 The National Sample Survey Office data 2012-13
reported that more than one fifth of rural
households having income less than the
poverty line.
 According to Socio Economy Survey 2002-03 of
NSSO, 40% of farmers showed
preference to quit farming if there was a
choice .
 Youth not interested to work in
agriculture (Himanshu et al., 2016)
 Govt. constituted “National Commission
of Farmers” and also Ministry of
Agriculture to Ministry of Agriculture
and Farmers Welfare in 2015.
 Current annual growth rate of
Agriculture is 2%

7. The study observed that the income earned from agriculture
wasn't adequate to keep as many as 53 % farm households
out of poverty, who operated on less than 0.6 Ha of land
holdings
Table: 1 As per 2013 survey- Agri. Household income is 6426 & expense as 6223
S.No. Source of Average Monthly Income Percentage
1. Cultivation (Agriculture and Horticulture) 47.9
2. Income from farming of animals 11.9
3. Income from salary 32.2
4. Non-farm business 8.0
Total 100.0
CSO,2014-15

8. The concept and timeframe
 what is the period and targeted
year for doubling Farmers
income
 what is to be doubled
 whether nominal income is to
be doubled or real income is to
be doubled
2015-16 to
2022-23
Is it the income of
farmers, or the output or
the income of the sector or
the value added or GDP of
agriculture sector
Income of
farmers
Agriculture will
require Annual growth
rate of 10.4%.
Real Income of
farmers
Policy paper, 02-10-2017

9. Report on Doubling Farmer’s Income by
2022 Farm Crisis and Farmers’ Distress
30 April, 2016, India International Centre, New Delhi
The highlights of the meet was
To address the issue of agriculture sustainability in face of climate
change, market and technological developments and the need of
effective policy measures to aid the farmers.
Dr.M.S Swaminathan
Emphasising on the role of technology and youth in agriculture his
words can be quoted as: “If agriculture goes wrong nothing else goes
right.” and “Younger people will join agriculture if it is technologically
driven”. Increasing incomes by
improving productivity
 Water and Agri-Input policies

10. Table:3
Crop
1960-61 2010-15
Percent growth from
1960-61 to 2010-15
Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity
Apple 0.44 1.85 4.15 2.735 25.631 9.73 521.59 1285.45 134.45
Pear 0.06 0.33 5.41 0.346 1.733 5.00 476.66 425.15 -7.57
Peach 0.10 0.43 4.30 0.161 0.580 3.60 61.00 34.88 -16.27
Plum 0.03 0.19 3.66 0.220 0.603 2.74 633.33 217.36 -25.13
Apricot 0.03 0.08 2.75 0.184 0.489 2.65 513.33 511.25 -3.63
Cherry 0.01 0.03 2.50 0.039 0.118 3.03 290.00 293.33 21.20
Almond NA NA NA 0.232 0.163 0.70 28.88 81.11 29.62
Walnut 0.14 0.12 0.85 1.123 1.840 1.63 702.14 1433.33 91.76
Total 0.82 3.03 3.71 5.026 31.139 6.19 512.92 927.68 66.84
Growth in area (lakh ha), production (lakh tons) and productivity
(t/ha) of temperate fruits from 1960-61 to 2010-15 in India
Source: FAO 1960, FAO 2009, NHB-
2015

11. Table: 4
Crop National average World average Advanced Country
Apple 9.73 14.35 30-40
Pear 5.00 12.13 30-40
Peach 3.60 11.18 15-20
Plum 2.74 4.10 8-10
Apricot 2.65 7.09 12-15
Cherry 3.03 4.82 8-10
Almond 0.70 1.13 3-5
Walnut 1.63 2.40 5-6
 Comparative average productivity (t/ha) of temperate fruits among India, world and advance
countries

12. Challenges in Temperate Fruit Production
Low Productivity
Depleting Land Resources
Post-Harvest Losses and Value-Addition
Changing Quality - Global Competition
Climate Change
Inadequate Market Linkage
Weak Extension Machinery and Mechanism

13. Strategies and Approaches To
Double Income of farmers

14. i) Enhancing Crop Productivity
iii) Enhancing the Quality of Fruit Produce
ii) Enhancing Factor Productivity through
Efficient Resource Management
iv) Evolving Sustainable and Climate-Resilient
Technologies
v) Plant Health Management
vi) Minimizing Post-Harvest Losses
Vii) Marketing and Economics Research
Cith, IIHR, 2016

15. Consolidation and
management of horticultural
genetic resources
Exploring biodiversity for tagging genes
for resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses
Widening the genetic base Development of improved varieties/hybrids
Agro-techniques for improved
productivity
I ) Enhancing Crop Productivity
Multiplication and distribution
of quality planting material of
improved varieties.

16. Enhancing factor productivity through
protected cultivation and vertical
farming.
Development of integrated crop
specific nutrient kits using microbial
consortia and nutrient formulations.
Development of precision farming
techniques, farm mechanization and
energy management
Developing efficient water and
nutrient management systems.
Application of GIS for diagnosis of
nutrient deficiency.
ii) Enhancing Factor Productivity through Efficient Resource
Management

17. iii) Enhancing the Quality of Fruit Produce
Breeding for high nutritive,
processing and export quality.
Breeding varieties for improved
shelf-life.
Crop production management for
enhancing quality
Developing sustainable land
management technologies.
Novel rapid-detection methods
based on spectroscopy;
immunology for detection of
pathogens, adulterants and
contaminants

18. iv) Evolving Sustainable and Climate-Resilient
Technologies
Integrated horticulture crop based farming
systems by adapting climate resilient
technologies.
Conservation horticulture technologies for
enhancing resource use efficiency and
carbon sequestration.
Use of energy efficient technologies and
non-conventional energy
resources to reduce carbon footprints from
horticultural systems.

19. Surveillance, crop loss assessment for
emerging insect pests,
diseases and weeds
Developing DNA chip and biosensor
based diagnostics for
multiple pathogens
Ecologically sustainable bio intensive
IPM strategies for diseases, insect
pests
Development of quarantine and
phyto-sanitary protocols for
export/import of horticulture produce
Using improved rootstocks
v) Plant Health Management

20. vi) Minimizing Post-
Harvest Losses
Integrating pre- and post-harvest protocols
for minimizing postharvest losses.
Value-addition and product
diversification.
Utilization of by-products, residues and
horticultural waste.

21. Vii) Marketing and Economics Research
Establishing efficient linkages and developing appropriate strategies through alternate
marketing arrangements, market intelligence and price forecast.
Assessment of crop diversification, farming systems,
and global competitiveness of major horticulture produce and products.
Returns on investment studies.

22. Prime Minister’s Seven points
Strategy for Doubling
Farmers Income By 2022

23. 1 Focus on irrigation with “per drop - more crop”
Quality Seed and Soil health
Creation of a national farm market
Value addition through food processing
Investments in ware housing & Cold Chain
Promotion of ancillary activities like Beekeeping,
poultry etc
New revolutionary crop insurance scheme to
mitigate risks at affordable costs and
2
3
4
5
6
7
Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana

24. In my state Road map
available to Double
the income of farmers
are

25. Option-I:
High Density through Govt & Private Enterprise 2222 trees per hectare
Table:5
S. No.
Particulars
Estimated
Cost (Rs. in lakhs)
Govt.
Share
Beneficiary
share
1 Land development 1.50 0.00 1.50
2
Pit digging, re-filling @ 70/pit for 2222 plants
(3mtr x 1.5 mtr.) 1.60 0.00 1.60
3
*Cost of plant material @ 500/plant for 2222
plants 11.00 9.90 1.10
4 *Cost of Trellis System (as per estimate) 10.00 5.00 5.00
5 Cost of fencing 4.50 0.00 4.50
6 * Micro Irrigation 2.00 1.00 1.00
7 Cost of Vermi Compost/ FYM (1 eft per Pit) 0.80 0.00 0.80
8 Pesticides 0.40 0.00 0.40
9 PP Machinery 0.20 0.10 0.10
Total:- 32.00 16.00 16.00

26. Option-II
High Density through Private Enterprise-3333trees per Hectare
Table:6
S. No.
Component
Estimated cost per
ha
(Rs. in lakhs)
Govt.
Share
Beneficiary
share
1. *Cost of plant material (3 feathered) @ Rs.500/-
plant for 3333 trees (1x3 m)
16.67 13.20 3.47
2. *Cost of 4-wire trellis system (with installation) 12.00 6.00 6.00
3. Cost of Anti-hail net (with installation) or
fencing
4.50 - 4.50
4. *Cost of Micro-irrigation system 2.40 1.20 1.20
5. Land Development 1.50 - 1.50
6. Pit digging, plantation @Rs.70/- pit 2.33 - 2.33
7. Cost of vermi compost Unit 0.80 - 0.80
8. Pesticides 0.40 - 0.40
9. Plant protection machinery 0.20 - 0.20
Total 40.80 20.40 20.40
Approximately 41.00

27. February 18, 2017
 The Chief Minister launched the High Density Apple
Plantation Scheme in Srinagar
 Kashmir to observe 2017 as the ‘Year of Apple’
 To promote the famed Kashmiri apples in domestic and
foreign markets.
 The high density plants have a yield of 50-70 metric tonnes per
hectare against traditional orchards, their by increasing the
income of farmers

28. CM gives further impetus on vigorous penetration of High Density
scheme, revival of processing units, developing cold stores near mandies
30/10/17

29. Remunerative Value of traditional orchards Remunerative Value of HDP
Area Ha
Present
Productivity
Productio
n (Mt)
Value in Rs
Plant
Density
Productivity
Production
(MT)
Value in Rs
Apple 162971 10.59 1726834 69073360000 3333 50 8148550 4.07428E+11
Pear 14532 6.07 88329 264987000 5555 250 3633000 1089900000
Peach 2615 2.37 6221 248840000 1111 15.77 41238.55 1649542000
Plum 4038 2.50 10112 404480000 5000 50 201900 8076000000
Cherry 2835 2.92 8282 579740000 1600 19 53865 3770550000
If our state shifts from traditional orcharding system to High
Density Planting System, Profitability can increase 3-4 times
Deparment of Horticulture, 2016

30. Diversification with other high value fruit
crops (exotic apple cultivars, peach, plum,
apricot, olive , kiwi fruit etc.)
Per Ha value of output of major fruit crops
as given ;

31. Summary of high density orcharding systems in apple
assessed at various places in India and abroad
Table: 7
Variety Rootstock Training
System
Spacing
(m)
Density
(Trees/ha)
Yield (t/ha) Reference (Country)
Marshal McIntosh M-9 Slender spindle 1.7 x 4.0 1429 60.0 (9th Year) Wunsche and Lasko 2000(USA)
Golden Delicious M-9 Central leader 1.5 x 3.0 2222 47.4 (8th year) CITH Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Vista Bella M-9 Central leader 1.5 x 3.0 2222 42.5(8th year) CITH Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Golden Delicious MM-106 Central leader 2.5 x 3.5 1143 39.5 (8th year) CITH Annual Report, 2010 India)
Mollies Delicious M-9 Central leader 1.5 x 3.0 2222 35.5 (8th year) CITH Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Red Fuji EMLA-111 Modified leader 3.0 x 3.0 1111 16.9 (9th Year) Bhatia & Kumar, 2009 (India)
Scarlet Gala EMLA-111 Modified leader 3.0 x 30.0 1111 15.6 (9th year) Bhatia & Kumar, 2009 (India)
Oregon Spur MM-106 Modified leader 2.5 x 2.5 1600 13.2 (7th year) Verma, 2009 (Unpublished)(India)
Red Chief & Silver
Spur MM-106 Modified leader 2.5 x 2.5 1600 12.6(7th Yr) Verma, 2009 (Unpublished) (India)
Vance Delicious M-7 Modified leader 4.0 x 4.0 625 12.1 Rana and Bhatia 2004
Oregon Spur EMLA-106 Modified leader 1.5 x 3.0 2222 47.5 (9th year) Sharma et al. 2004

32. Summary of high density orcharding systems in pear
Table:8
Variety
Rootstock
Training
system
Spacing
(m)
Density
(trees/ha)
Yield (t/ha) Reference
Abbe Fetel
Quince clone
(MC)
V-shape 3.6 x 0.50 5555
262.0
After 7th year
cumm. yield
Musacchi et al, 2005
Abbe Fetel
Quince clone
(MC)
Vertical axis 3.6 x 0.50 5555 257.0 Musacchi et al., 2005
Conference
Quince clone
(MC)
V-shape 3.6 x 0.50 5555
181.0
After 7th year
cumm. yield
Musacchi et al., 2005
Doyenne du
Comice
Quince clone
(MC)
Vertical axis 3.6 x 0.35 7936
132.0
After 7th year
cumm. yield
Musacchi et al., 2005
Conference Quince-A Y-trellis 4.0 x 1.50 1666 47.5 -
Bagugosha P. pashia Double hedge
row 5.0 x 2.5 888 9.9 (10th year) Bist and Yadav., 2004

33. Summary of high density orcharding systems in peach assessed at various
places in India and abroad
Table:9
Variety Rootstock Training system Spacing (m)
Density
(Trees/ha) Yield (t/ha)
Reference
(Country)
Fantasia Standard Modified leader 2.5 x 2.5 1600 20.6 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Red Globe Standard Modified leader 3.0 x 3.0 1111 16.86 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Red Globe Standard Modified leader 2.5 x 2.5 1600 15.77 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Cresthaven Standard Modified leader 2.5 x 2.5 1600 13.8 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Glohaven Standard Modified leader 3.0 x 3.0 1111 13.22 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Fantasia Standard Modified leader 3.0 x 3.0 1111 14.11 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Cresthaven Standard Modified leader 3.0 x 3.0 1111 10.89 (3rd Year) CITH, Annual Report, 2010 (India)
Shan-i-Punjab
Y-shape without
support 6 x 1.5 1111 37.2 (5th year) Kanwar and Singh, 2004

34. Summary of high density orcharding systems in plum assessed at various
places in India and abroad
Table:10
Variety Rootstock
Training
system
Spacing
(m)
Density
(trees/ha)
Yield
(t/ha)
Reference
(Country)
Mallard St. Julian A Y-trellis 0.5 x 4.0 5000 95.1
(7yrs)
Meland, 2005 (Norwey)
Opal St. Julian A Y-trellis 0.5 x 4.0 5000 77.6
(8yrs)
Meland, 2005 (Norwey)
Elda St. Julian A Y-trellis 0.5 x 4.0 5000 53.0
(7yrs)
Meland, 2005 (Norwey)
Satluj
Purple
-
Modified
leader
1.5 x 3.0 2225 9.2 Singh et al., 2004
Satluj
Purple
Kabul Green
Gauge
Modified
leader
3.0 x 1.5 2222 10.1
Sidhu and Kaundal,
2004

35. Summary of high density orcharding systems in sweet cherry assessed at
various places in India and abroad
Variety Rootstock Training
system
Spacing
(m)
Density
(trees/ha) Yield (t/ha) Reference (Country)
Bing Gisela-6 Palmette 2.6 x 4.9 864 27.1 (9 yr old) Whiting et al., 2005 (USA)
Bing Gisela-6 Central leader 2.6 x 4.9 864 25.8 (9 yr old) Whiting et al., 2005 (USA)
Bing Gisela-6 Y-trellis 2.6 x 4.9 864 23.9 (9 yr old) Whiting et al., 2005 (USA)
Summit
Tabel
Edabriz
V-shape 0.7 x 3.8 3759 19.3 (6th year) Radunic et al., 2011 (Croatia)
CITH
Cherry-1 Colt Modified centre 2.5 x 2.5 1600 7.93 (8th year) CITH Annual Report 2010 (India)
Bigarreau
NoirGrossa
Colt Modified centre 2.5 x 2.5 1600 5.2 (8th year) CITH Annual Report 2010 (India)
CITH -05 Colt Modified centre 2.5 x 2.5 1600 8.3 (8th year) CITH Annual Report 2010 (India)
CITH-05 Colt Modified centre 3.0 x 3.0 1111 8.3 (8th year) CITH Annual Report 2010 (India)
CITH-01 Colt Modified centre 3.0 x 3.0 1111 8.3 (8th year) CITH Annual Report 2010 (India)
CITH-02 Colt Modified centre 3.0 x 3.0 1111 8.3 (8th year) CITH Annual Report 2010 (India)

36. Table:11
Variety
Rootstock Training
system
Spacing
(m)
Density
(trees/ha)
Yield (t/ha) Reference (Country)
Supernova Seedling V-shape 2.5 x 5.0 800
24.5
(cummu.
Yield 10 yrs)
Monastra et al., 1998
Ferragnus Seedling V-shape 2.5 x 5.0 800 23.5(cummu.
Yield 10 yrs)
Monastra et al., 1998
Non Pariel Nemaguard Standard 3.0 x 6.6 500 3.28 Duncan R.,Univ. California (USA)
Non Pariel Hensin Standard 3.0 x 6.0 500 3.63 Duncan R., Univ. California (USA)
Non Pariel Price Hedge row 2.2 x 6.7 667 2.45 Duncan R., Univ.California (USA)
Waris Seedling Modified
leader
4.0 x 4.0 652 3.60 Kumar et al., 2012
Summary of high density orcharding systems in almond
assessed at various places in India and abroad

37. Conclusion
 Fruit varieties need to be bred for multiple resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, and with high
yield potential and good quality.
 360 degree approach to making Horticulture and related activities more remunerative.
 Horticulturist can only succeed if government at the centre and the state, district and block officials
as well as the banking system remain committed to the purpose and work in tandem towards the goal
of doubling farmers' income for 2022.
 HDP is a potential technology for efficient utilization of resources (land, labour, skilled manpower,
inputs) and is highly remunerative and beneficial for increasing farm income
 Proven HDP technologies are available for adoption at farm level in apple, almond, peach, cherry and plum.