See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343097407

Economic Analysis of High Density Orchards

Preprint · July 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21544.60167

CITATIONS READS

0 1,065

3 authors:

Insha Majid Aroosa Khalil Khalil

Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Jammu
16 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nowsheen Nazir
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir
38 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Review paper View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Insha Majid on 21 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Economic Analysis of High Density Orchards
Insha Majid1, Aroosa Khalil2, Nowsheen Nazir3
1,2,3
Division of Fruit Science, SKUAST-K, Jammu and Kashmir,(India)

ABSTRACT
High density orcharding is one of the novel concept of increasing productivity without altering the quality of the
fruits. The introduction of high density planting may well be one of the most important changes in fruit
production practices. These orchards are capable of producing early and sustained yields of quality fruits.
Crowding of plants is now considered an assured way of having a high production. No doubt, HDP orchards
require significantly higher investments compared to the conventional orchards but they could provide earlier
and better returns on invested funds. These early returns erode interest cost that can greatly impact the
profitability and feasibility of the orchard investment. High density planting is highly precocious starting
bearing from second year of planting and reaches full production in the 4 th year which results in early pay back
period as compared to conventional orchards. Apart from this, HDP has the highest ratio of A grade (>80%)
fruits which are better both in terms of quality and price. Therefore, the way out for increasing the yield,
productivity and quality of fruit is by shifting to high density orcharding.
Keywords. High density planting, high production, precocious, pay back period, quality

I.INTRODUCTION

India is the largest producer of fruits in the world after China. However, the average productivity of fruits in
India is low (10 ton/ha) as compared to many developed countries (60-70 ton/ha) and its main reasons are old
and senile orchards, low yielding varieties, poor orchard management and inadequate technological upgradation.
Presently the continuing decline in the availability of cultivable land, rising energy and land costs together with
mounting demand for horticultural produce has given thrust to the concept of high density planting (HDP).

High density planting (HDP) means to increase the plant production per unit area for increasing the
production of fruit crops. It is also defined as planting at a density in excess of that which gives maximum crop
yield at maturity if the individual tree grows to its full natural size. In other words, it is the planting of more
number of plants than optimum through manipulation of tree size. It is the system in which a higher number of
plants of same or different crop species are accommodated within a unit area in comparison to the conventional
planting density so as to obtain maximum output by utilization of land, light and externally applied inputs viz,
nutrients, water, pesticides, etc. The exact limits of the plant density to be termed as high density is not yet well
defined. It varies with the region, species, varieties, rootstock, cost of planting material, labour and the likely
return from the orchard and agro-techniques adopted for a particular crop.

821 | P a g e
Plant density needs to be designed to intercept solar radiations effectively keeping in view cultivar, soil fertility,
climatic conditions, moisture level, planting system, planting material, management level and economic
considerations. HDP aims to achieve the twin requisites of productivity by maintaining a balance between
vegetative and reproductive load without impairing the plant health. To overcome low productivity and long
gestation period for early returns. The conventional systems of planting having a long juvenile period, are labour
intensive and low yielding with poor-quality fruits, whereas high density orchard is more efficient orcharding
system. It is precocious, easily manageable, has higher potential, with better quality fruits and higher returns
/unit area. The purpose of this review to investigate the published literature as it relates to economics of high
density planting and propose guidelines that make future research even more useful to commercial fruit growers.

II.HISTORY OF HIGH DENSITY ORCHARD

The conceptual background of High Density Planting (HDP) reveals that it was pioneered for temperate fruits in
Europe. There has been a steady increase in tree planting density over the last 50 years from 70 trees/ ha to >
6000 trees/ha. High density orchards were first planted in Europe at the end of 1960 and since then there is a
decline in traditional orchards with low densities. Heinicke (1975) developed Central Leader system in North
America and this system was planted at a density of 300-700 trees/ha utilizing semi dwarfing rootstocks and was
widely adopted. But in many cases as central leader trees aged, the upper limbs outgrew the bottom of the trees
resulting in excessive shade in the bottom of the trees which reduced flowering and fruiting in the center of the
tree. During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s a significant number of growers in the USA began planting more
compact trees on M.9, Mazzard, Quince rootstocks at much higher tree densities (1000-1500 trees/ha) to achieve
higher early yields. A significant trend in the late 1980’s was to increase planting density in Slender Spindle
orchards to improve light interception and thereby improve both early and mature yields (Oberhofer, 1987).
Another more successful approach to improving yield in the late 1980’s was to grow taller trees (3-4m high) by
using Vertical Axis system (1000- 1500 trees/ha) developed by Jean Lespinase (1980). During the early 1990’s
much higher tree densities between 4000-6000 trees /ha were tested in single rows in either a vertical tree shape
or V-shape. A more narrow tree form was developed which was named the Super Spindle system (Nuberlin,
1993) and this system had extremely high early yield and excellent fruit quality. Another significant trend
during the late 1980’s and 1990’s was greater emphasis on the use of highly featured trees to obtain significant
yield in the second year after planting. At the end of the century there was a great disparity of opinion among
growers on which system was the most profitable with some growers using densities above 5000 trees/ha and
some growers continuing to use densities below 500 trees/ha with the majority of growers planting densities in
between.

822 | P a g e
III. CATEGORIES OF HIGH DENSITY ORCHARD

There are following categories of high density orchards:

1.1 Low Density Planting (LDP): It accommodates 100 plants/ha and there is no use of dwarfing rootstocks,
minimum training and pruning, trees come into commercial production potential after 10-15 years and
yield during early years was very low.
1.2 Medium Density Planting (MDP): It accommodates 250-500 plants/ ha. It requires proper pruning, gives
more yield and quality fruits and have long productive life.
1.3 High Density Planting (HDP): It accommodates more than 1000 plants/ha. It requires rigorous training
and pruning, dwarfing rootstocks and chemicals to maintain optimum growth. Here both yield and
expenses are higher and establishment and maintenance of HDPs requires technical backup.
1.4 Ultra High Density Planting (UHDP): It accommodates more than 2000-5000 plants /ha. It requires
severe pruning and training, proper canopy management, chemical assistance and nutrient management and
also requires technical backup.
1.5 Super High Density Planting (SHDP): It accommodates more than 10,000-40,000 plants/ha. Here severe
top pruning is practiced similar to mowing of grass land, heavy use of growth regulators as well as judicial
canopy management and tree yields after 1 or 2 years after planting. In apple, 10000 plants/ha can be
accommodated at a spacing of 1 x 1m.

IV.PRINCIPLES OF HIGH DENSITY ORCHARD

1.1 Obtaining maximum productivity through planting more number of fruit trees per unit area.
1.2 To make the best use of vertical and horizontal space per unit time.
1.3 Optimizing the exploitation of natural resources like land, air, solar energy and water.
1.4 Getting higher yield of quality fruits.

V.CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH DENSITY ORCHARD

1.1 The trees of HDP should have maximum number of fruiting branches and minimum number of structural
branches.
1.2 The trees are generally trained with the central leader surrounded by nearly horizontal fruiting branches
(feathers).
1.3 These branches should be so arranged and pruned in such a way that each branch casts a minimum amount
of shade on other branches

VI.COMPONENTS OF HIGH DENSITY ORCHARD

HDP can be achieved by close planting which in turn is made possible through control of tree size or planting in
a system which accommodate more number of plants. Manipulation of tree vigour/size is an important pre-
requisite for success of HDP in any fruit crop. High density of fruit orchards is generally achieved by controlling

823 | P a g e
the size of the tree or through improved planting systems. The following methods are applied to control the size
of plants in high density planting:

1.1 Use of genetically dwarf scion cultivars:

The genetically dwarf cultivars offer a great scope for close planting. Such varieties are limited in number and
available only in few crops e.g. spur bearing varieties in apple (Silver Spur, Gold Spur, Super Chief, Red Spur
etc) and cherry (Compact Lambert and North Star).

1.2 Use of dwarfing rootstock: Unlike the temperate fruits wherein this technology was first adopted with the
use of rootstocks, spur bearing varieties and training and pruning, the choice of rootstock and dwarf
varieties is limited in tropical and sub-tropical crops. The dwarfing rootstock of some of the fruits are given
e.g. apple (M9, M26, M27, B9, B146, P-22 etc), cherry (Gisela 3, G5, G12, Colt etc), pear (Quince A,
Quince C, Knee Eline etc) and plum (Pixy).
1.3 Pruning and training: It is well known that a pruning in any form has a dwarfing effect on the trees. Slow
growing trees respond more favorably to pruning and training and can be maintained at a given size and
shape without sacrificing yield. Tree size control through pruning is limited to grape, apple and some other
temperate crops. Of the various training systems being followed in apple eg. Spindle Bush, Dwarf Pyramid,
Espaliers and Cordon raised on M8, M7 and M4 rootstocks found to be promising training systems for
HDP.
1.4 Use of growth retardants: Various growth retardants have been used to restrict the vegetative growth of
the plant eg. AMO 1618, CCC, Ancymidal, Paclobutrazol, Phosphon D and Chloramquat.
1.5 Induction of viral infection: Though not commercially adopted, tree size can be reduced by inducing viral
infection eg. Citrus, apple. In apple virus free rootstock series East Malling Long Ashton (EMLA) are
vigrous than their infected counterparts.
1.6 Use of incompatible rootstocks: The use of graft incompatible scions and stocks also induces dwarfness in
the composite plants eg. Ber

VII.INITIAL PLANNING OF HIGH DENSITY PLANTING

There are many interlinked decisions that need to be made during initial planning for an intensive system that
are critical to ensuring success. These decisions will be influenced by a range of site, economic and management
factors. The factors vary from orchard to orchard. Making the right choices about intensive system
establishment and management depends on growers having a good understanding of the financial commitment
and risks associated with intensive production. Management commitments need to ensure maximum potential
for high annual yields beginning as early as possible in a new orchard’s life. Growers must understand the
importance of integrating technical aspects (variety x rootstock x planting system x management regime) for
best orchard outcomes. These include
1.1 Financial commitment

824 | P a g e
The higher cost of establishing HDP are due to higher tree numbers and higher cost of trees, installation of
trellis/ support system, more intensive management during establishment years and possible cost of interest on
borrowed money to establish support systems
1.2 Management commitments
It includes paying attention to the quality of planting material, ensuring optimal site preparation and tree
planting, tree nutrition, irrigation and pruning and training.
1.3 Choosing the right combination
It includes choosing the right combination of rootstocks, varieties, planting system, management options, soil
fertility and climate
1.4 Risks
The biggest financial risk with HDP system is crop failure, particularly in the early years of establishment.
There may be range of reasons for crop failure including extreme weather or poor management decisions.
Failure to produce early yields will not only have an immediate financial impact but may also affect yield
production in subsequent years. It is crucial that orchards have risk management options in place from the
beginning. This is particularly important for risks that growers have less control over e.g. extreme weather
events associated with ongoing climate change. So planning for HDP should include provisions for managing
the risk of crop loss, such as hail netting, frost fans and overhead irrigation for evaporative cooling.

VIII.INFLUENCE OF HIGH DENSITY PLANTING ON, YIELD, PAYBACK PERIOD AND

QUALITY

1.1 Apple
Badiu et al. (2015) studied evaluation of economic efficiency of apple orchard investments and found that the
most efficient technological system is the super-intensive one. This is explained by the fact that the system
begins producing from the second year, that it is the most productive, and that it has the highest ratio of Extra
Class apples (more than 80%), which are better appreciated on the market (both in terms of quantity consumed
and in terms of premium price).
Clements (2011) analyzed mini’ apple orchard systems trial: a comparison of central-leader, vertical-axis, and
tall-spindle apple orchard systems on three different rootstocks and found that the tall-spindle (TS) system
planted on B.9 rootstock had the highest cumulative yield (1202 bu/acre) of Honeycrisp fruits during the 3rd, 4th
and 5th seasons. In fact, cumulative yield was almost twice that of the vertical-axis system.
Robinson et al. (2007) observed an economic comparison of five high density apple planting systems and found
that the greatest profitability was with the Slender Axis system ($23,900), followed by the Tall Spindle
($23,400), Super Spindle ($19,200), Vertical Axis ($17,100), and least for the low density Slender Pyramid
system ($9,000).

825 | P a g e
Cahn and Goedegebure (1992) studied the economic aspects of apple production in relation to tree density and
results showed that long term profitability of apples increased with increased tree density upto 5000 trees/ha. In
addition, payback period (4th year) analysis decreased with increased tree density.
1.2 Mango
Kerutagi et al. (2017) analyzed the comparative economics of traditional viz high density mango cultivation in
Karnataka and observed that in high density orchard, the average yield obtained was more (7.86 t/acre) than in
traditional orchard (3.50 t/acre).
Gaikwad et al. (2017) studied the effect of spacing on growth, yield and quality of mango and observed that
highest fruit yield (21.4 MT) was produced in closer spacing of 5 x 5m in cultivar Kesar.
Rajbhar et al. (2016) observed the performance of high density planting of mango (Mangifera indica L.,) under
mid-western plain zone of Uttar Pradesh and found that after 11 years, the yields of the plots planted at 1111
trees per ha were more than ten times the yields of plots planted at 100 trees per ha (59 t/ha versus 5.9 t/ha).
1.3 Pear
Robinson (2010) studied high density pear production: an opportunity for NY growers and noticed that the
extremely high planting density of the Super Spindle achieved a yield of 1,000 bu/acre in the 4 th year and has
continued to be productive indicating good long profitability followed by Tall Spindle having the moderate
planting densities which also had high yields but with lower initial investment cost also have greater economic
profitability.
Elkins et al. (2008) observed the economic evaluation of high density versus standard orchard configurations;
case study using performance data for Golden Russet Bosc pear and noticed that a high-density planting came
into production sooner, showing a profit after six years compared nine years for the traditional planting and the
cost of establishing the orchards were recovered after ten years in the high density planting compared with
twenty one years for the traditional planting.
1.4 Cherry
Whiting et al. (2005) determined rootstock and training system affect sweet cherry growth, yield and fruit
quality because ‘Gisela 6’ rooted trees were the most productive, yielding between 13% and 31% more than
‘Gisela 5’rooted trees and 657% to 212% more than Mazzard-rooted trees, depending on the year. Both ‘Gisela
6’ and ‘Gisela 5’ were significantly more precocious than Mazzard and induced fruiting two years after planting.
They also found that cumulative yields of ‘Gisela 6’, ‘Gisela 5’ and Mazzard rootstocks were 136, 108 and 42
Kg respectively.
Manolova & Kolev (2007) examined economic results from growing of cherry in different levels of
intensification and the trial showed that experimental fields on rootstock P. Mahaleb started yielding on the fifth
year (4200 Kg/ha) and reached full fruit-bearing on the eighth year (21000 Kg/ha) while as rootstock ‘Gisela 5’
began to yield on the third year (7500 Kg/ha) and reach full yielding on the fifth year (37500 Kg/ha)
respectively.
Seavart and Long (2009) noticed financial and economic comparison between establishing standard and high
density cherry orchard and found that the full production yield is 13,450 kg per ha in a standard-density orchard
826 | P a g e
and 15,243 kg per ha in a high-density orchard. The break-even year in which gross income covers all previous
years’ economic costs is year 8 for the high-density orchard and year 15 for the standard-density orchard.
1.5 Plum
Milosevic et al. (2008) noticed a comparison of low-density and high-density plum plantings for differences in
establishment and management costs, and in returns over the first three growing seasons – a mini-review and
found that in the low-density planting, initial fruit bearing was attained by the end of the third growing season
and a modest yield of 1.2 kg plum fruit per tree (399.6 kg ha–1) was obtained, producing a low gross income of
€ 79.92, representing just a 2.0% return on investment, when considering the average market price of € 0.2 kg–1
plum fruit in the years of study whereas in the high-density planting resulted in yields of 6.6 kg plum fruit per
tree (8,250 kg ha–1) in total over the first three growing seasons, producing an income of € 1,650.This
represented a 21.3% return on investments associated with the establishment and maintenance of the high-
density plum planting over the first three growing seasons.
Meland (2005) studied high density planting systems of European plums-the effect of growth and productivity
of three cultivars after nine years and proved that the Y-trellis system is an efficient way to increase both early
and cumulative yield.
1.6 Almond
Kumar et al. (2012) analyzed studies on high density planting in almond in Kashmir valley and found that
maximum nut yield was recorded in higher plant density (4.01 t/ha) followed by medium density (3.06 t/ha) and
minimum in lower plant density(2.54t/ha).

1.7 Peach and nectarines

Zec et al. (2015) studied influence of planting density on yield of peach and nectarine and found that in a dense
planting all cultivars achieved significantly higher yield per unit area (22,120 t/ha) and reach full bearing earlier
compared with semi-dense planting(20,500 t/ha) and standard-density planting(14,312 t/ha).

IX.CONCLUSION
Horticulture sector provides excellent opportunities in raising the income of the farmers and also provides
higher unit productivity. With this background in the mind, an attempt was made to assess the economics of
fruit cultivation. This review implies that fruit cultivation was more attractive in high density compared to
traditional method because of reduced cost of labour resulting in low cost of production, facilitates better
utilization of solar radiations and increase in bearing surface per unit land area. Finally, it was concluded that
high density planting resulted in increased yield, induces precocity and improves fruit quality.

827 | P a g e
REFERENCES
[1]. Badiu, D., Arion, F.H., Muresan, L. C., Lile, R. and Mitre, V. 2015. Evaluation of economic efficiency of
apple orchard investments. Acta Horticulturae 7: 10521-10533.
[2]. Cahn, M. B. and Goedegebure, J. 1992. Economic aspects of apple production in relation to tree density.
New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 20: 289-296.
[3]. Choudhary, H.D., Khandelwal, S.K., Choudhary, M.K., Gadawal, O.P. and Choudhary, M.R. 2015. High
density and meadow orchard planting system in fruit crops.
http://www.krishisewa.com/articles/production-technology/527-meadow-orchard.html.
[4]. Clements, J. 2011. Mini’ apple orchard systems trial: a comparison of central-leader, vertical-axis, and
tall-spindle apple orchard systems on three different rootstocks. Fruit notes 76:10-15.
[5]. Elkins, R.B., Klonsky, K., DeMoura, R., DeJong, T.M., 2008. Economic evaluation of high density
versus standard orchard configurations; case study using performance data for Golden Russet ®Bosc
pear. Acta Horticulturae 800 (2), 739–746.
[6]. Gaikwad, S.P., Chalak, S.U. and Kamble, A.B. 2017. Effect of spacing on growth, yield and quality of
mango. J Krishi Vigyan 5(2): 50-53.
[7]. Heinicke, D.R. 1975. High density orchards-planning, training and pruning. U.S. Department. Agr. Hdbk,
458.
[8]. Initial planning. http://www.hin.com.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0010/17884/Initial-planning.pdf.
[9]. Kerutagi, M.G., Deshetti, M.B. and Abhilash, K. 2017. Comparative economics of traditional viz high
density mango cultivation in Karnataka. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and
sociology 18(3): 1-12.
[10]. Kumar, D., Ahmad, N. and Verma, M.K. 2012. Analyzed studies on high density planting in almond in
Kashmir valley. Indian J. Hort. 69(3): 328-332.
[11]. Manolova, V. and Kolev, K. 2007. Economic results from growing of cherry in different levels of
intensification. Acta Horticulturae 981:719-723.
[12]. Meland, M. 2005. High density planting systems of European plums-the effect of growth and
productivity of three cultivars after nine years. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant,
55: 51-57.
[13]. Milosevic, T., Zornic, B. and Glisic, I. 2008. A comparison of low-density and high density plum
plantings for differences in establishment and management costs, and in returns over the first three
growing seasons- a mini-review. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 83(5): 539-542.
[14]. Nuberlin, F. 1993. The super spindle apple orchard system. Compact Fruit Tree 26, 17.
[15]. Oberhofer, H. 1987. Schnitt der schlanken spindel. 83p. Südtiroler Beratungspring Für Obst-und
weinbau. Lana, Italy.
[16]. Rajbhar, Y.P., Singh, S.D., Lal, M., Singh, G., Rawat, P.L., 2016. Performance of high density planting
of mango (Mangifera indica L.) under mid-western plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 12,
298–301.
828 | P a g e
 [17]. Robinson, T.L. 2007. An economic comparison of five high density apple planting systems. Acta
Horticulturae 732: 481-489.
[18]. Robinson, T.L. 2010. High density pear production: An opportunity for NY growers. New York Fruit
Quarterly 18: 5-9.
[19]. Salaria, A.S. and Salaria, B.S. 2014.Horticulture at a glance. Intellects-Nurture to Excel 1:284-288.
[20]. Seavert, C. and Long, L.E. 2009. Financial and economic comparison between establishing standard and
high density cherry orchard.
[21]. Whiting, M.D., Lang, G. and Ophardt. D. 2005. Rootstock and training system affect sweet cherry
growth, yield and fruit quality. Hort Science 40(3): 582-586.
I.Zec, G., Solic, S., Vulic, T., Milatovic, D., Djordjevic, B., Djurovic, D. and Velickovic, M. 2015. Influence of
planting density on yield of peach and nectarine. Fifth International Scientific Agricultural Symposium 10:
204-208.

829 | P a g e

View publication stats