Figure 1.
Number of polyhouses created during 2014–2015 (a) and 2015–2016 (b).
Figure 1.
Number of polyhouses created during 2014–2015 (a) and 2015–2016 (b).
Table 1.
Area and production of horticultural crops in Uttarakhand.
Table 1.
Area and production of horticultural crops in Uttarakhand.
| Fruits | Vegetables | Flowers |
---|
| Area (‘000 ha) | Production (‘000t) | Productivity (t/ha) | Area (‘000 ha) | Production (‘000t) | Productivity (t/ha) | Area (‘000 ha) | Production Loose (‘000t) | Production Cut (Lakh no) |
---|
Uttarakhand | | | | | | | |
1991–1992 | 150.5 (5.2) | 428.7 (1.5) | 2.8 (28.0) | 57.1 (1.02) | 617.6 (1.06) | 10.8 (102.9) | | | |
2001–2002 | 197.5 (4.9) | 376.1 (0.87) | 1.9 (17.75) | 93.8 (1.52) | 737.3 (0.83) | 7.9 (54.8) | | | |
2011–2012 | 200.7 (2.99) | 802.1 (1.04) | 4.0 (35.09) | 89.3 (0.99) | 1066.7 (0.68) | 11.9 (68.4) | 1.5 (0.59) | 1.81 (0.11) | 3567.6 (4.75) |
2015–2016 | 175.33 (2.79) | 659.1 (0.73) | 3.76 (26.3) | 89.84 (0.89) | 945.36 (0.56) | 10.52 (62.9) | 1.5 (0.54) | 1.75 (0.11) | 13.52 * (2.56) |
India | | | | | | | |
1991–1992 | 2874.5 | 28,632 | 10 | 5592.4 | 58,520.9 | 10.5 | | | |
2001–2002 | 4010.2 | 43,000.9 | 10.7 | 6155.6 | 88,620.3 | 14.4 | | | |
2011–2012 | 6704.2 | 76,424.2 | 11.4 | 8989.6 | 156,325.5 | 17.4 | 253.6 | 1650.87 | 75,066.0 |
2015–2016 | 6300.67 | 90,183.04 | 14.3 | 10,106.29 | 169,063.93 | 16.7 | 277.57 | 1656.24 | 527.67 |
Table 2.
District-wise area and production of fruits, vegetables, and flowers in Uttarakhand, 2015–2016.
Table 2.
District-wise area and production of fruits, vegetables, and flowers in Uttarakhand, 2015–2016.
District | Fruits | Vegetables | Flowers |
---|
| Area (‘000 ha) | Production (‘000 tons) | Yield (tonsha−1) | Area (‘000 ha) | Production (‘000 tons) | Yield (tonsha−1) | Area (‘000 ha) | Production (‘000 tons) | Yield (tonsha−1) |
---|
Nanital | 10.83 | 109.39 | 10.1 | 5.88 | 59.70 | 10.16 | 0.06 | 0.34 | 200.07 |
Udhamsinghnagar | 7.56 | 53.14 | 7.03 | 7.44 | 89.99 | 12.1 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 54.86 |
Almora | 24.16 | 175.65 | 7.27 | 4.44 | 43.51 | 9.81 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 6.84 |
Bageswar | 3.54 | 12.63 | 3.57 | 1.58 | 8.23 | 5.22 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 3.7 |
Pithoragarh | 15.72 | 46.03 | 2.93 | 5.36 | 72.34 | 13.5 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6.32 |
Champawat | 8.18 | 13.47 | 1.65 | 3.10 | 20.97 | 6.77 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.6 |
Dehradun | 26.41 | 40.06 | 1.52 | 9.67 | 70.76 | 7.32 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 506.32 |
Paudi | 20.78 | 33.33 | 1.6 | 4.77 | 34.51 | 7.23 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 103 |
Tihri | 20.94 | 28.51 | 1.36 | 8.22 | 73.89 | 8.99 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 83.96 |
Chamoli | 3.63 | 15.21 | 4.19 | 2.04 | 12.22 | 5.99 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 10.63 |
Rudraprayag | 3.11 | 2.37 | 0.76 | 1.01 | 3.09 | 3.07 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 61.5 |
Uttarkashi | 15.13 | 30.63 | 2.02 | 6.30 | 37.37 | 5.93 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.06 |
Haridwar | 15.34 | 98.68 | 6.43 | 4.16 | 60.55 | 14.56 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 709.45 |
Total | 175.33 | 659.09 | 3.76 | 63.95 | 587.12 | 9.18 | 1.34 | 1.47 | 1748.31 |
Table 3.
Funds allocated under the Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan states (HMNEH) program, Uttarakhand.
Table 3.
Funds allocated under the Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan states (HMNEH) program, Uttarakhand.
Year (TE) | Funds Allocated in Lakhs (Rs.) | Funds Available in Lakhs (Rs.) | Funds Utilized |
---|
Amount in Lakhs (Rs.) | % to Funds Utilized |
---|
TE 2005–2006 | 988.3 | 955.3 | 692.4 | 72.5 |
TE 2008–2009 | 3213.3 | 4286 | 2532.8 | 59 |
TE 2011–2012 | 2990 | 4596 | 2069.5 | 45 |
TE 2015–2016 | 3366.7 | 4639.2 | 3200.4 | 68.9 |
CAGR (2003–2016) | 11 | 18.2 | 17.8 | −0.3 |
Table 4.
Physical progress under HMNEH program, Uttarakhand, 2015-16.
Table 4.
Physical progress under HMNEH program, Uttarakhand, 2015-16.
Nurseries Set Up | 107 |
---|
Area expansion under Horticultural crops | 65,282 ha |
Fruits | 34,483 ha (52.8%) |
Vegetables | 21,340 ha (32.7%) |
Spices | 7369 ha (11.3%) |
Flowers | 2090 ha (3.2%) |
Rejuvenation of old and senile orchards | 13,880 ha |
Organic farming | 2970 ha |
INM/IPM area | 1928 ha |
Water harvesting tanks/ponds (No) | 1060 |
Tube wells/bore wells (No) | 2440 |
Protected cultivation | |
Greenhouse | 75.78 ha |
Shade net house | 4.97 ha |
Anti hail nets | 194.93 ha |
Mulching | 0.35 ha |
Farm handling/packhouses (No) | 1111 |
Wholesale markets (No) | 3 |
Ropeways (No) | 31 |
Mechanization—distribution of machines (No) | 4695 |
Table 5.
Performance of HMNEH program.
Table 5.
Performance of HMNEH program.
Year | No of Beneficiaries | Area Covered (m2) | Subsidy Disbursed (Rs lakh) | Average Area Covered (m2) | Average Subsidy Disbursed (Rs lakh) |
---|
2014–2015 | 36 | 25,000 | 123.89 | 694.5 | 3.44 |
2015–2016 | 51 | 22,390 | 116.16 | 439.02 | 2.28 |
Table 6.
Performance of National Horticulture Board scheme in Uttarakhand.
Table 6.
Performance of National Horticulture Board scheme in Uttarakhand.
Year | No of Beneficiaries | Project Cost (in Rs lakh) | Amount Released (in Rs lakh) | Amount Released Per Beneficiary (Rs lakh) |
---|
2010–2011 | 124 | 1469.49 | 299.12 | 2.41 |
2011–2012 | 65 | 11,050.88 | 327.86 | 5.04 |
2012–2013 | 26 | 660.08 | 130.44 | 5.01 |
2013–2014 | 41 | 1376.11 | 363.03 | 8.85 |
2014–2015 | 14 | 647.71 | 128.10 | 9.15 |
2015–2016 | 33 | 1542.73 | 622.46 | 18.86 |
Total | 303 | 16,747.00 | 1871.01 | 6.17 |
Table 7.
Classification of farmers based on various socio-economic characteristics (N = 96).
Table 7.
Classification of farmers based on various socio-economic characteristics (N = 96).
Socio-Economic Features | Classification | Almora Farmers | Dehradun Farmers |
---|
Number of Farmers | %age (%) | Number of Farmers | %age (%) |
---|
Age (Years) | 0–30 | 4 | 11.1 | 8 | 13 |
30–45 | 14 | 38.9 | 30 | 50 |
More than 45 | 18 | 50 | 22 | 37 |
Caste | General | 32 | 88.89 | 40 | 66.7 |
OBC | 4 | 11.11 | 20 | 33.3 |
SC/ST | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Education | Intermediate | 10 | 27.78 | 10 | 16.7 |
High | 18 | 50 | 35 | 58.3 |
Graduation & Above | 8 | 22.22 | 15 | 25 |
Ownership of polyhouses (No) | Less than 2 | 16 | 44.44 | 28 | 46.7 |
2 to 5 | 16 | 44.44 | 22 | 36.7 |
More than 5 | 4 | 11.12 | 10 | 16.7 |
Experience (Years) | Less than 4 | 10 | 27.78 | 25 | 41.7 |
4 to 8 | 22 | 61.11 | 33 | 55 |
More than 8 | 4 | 11.11 | 2 | 3.3 |
Occupation | Agriculture | 32 | 88.89 | 27 | 45 |
Business/service | 4 | 11.11 | 33 | 55 |
Table 8.
Cost of establishment of Polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Table 8.
Cost of establishment of Polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Particulars | Cost of Construction of Polyhouse (Rs/100 m2) |
---|
Amount (Rs) | Share in Total Cost (%) |
---|
(A) Wooden pole polyhouse (VIPKS promoted) | | |
(i) Land preparation | 5056 | 7.1 |
(ii) Irrigation structure | 15,028 | 21.2 |
(iii) Water tank sheet | 5000 | 7.0 |
(iv) Polysheet | 15,000 | 21.1 |
(v) Angle | 18,861 | 26.6 |
(vi) Nutbolt | 686 | 1.0 |
(vii) Wooden pole | 736 | 10.4 |
(viii) Labour | 4022 | 5.7 |
Total cost | 71,014 | 100.0 |
Own contribution | 51,014 | 71.8 |
VIPKAS (polythene) | 20,000 | 28.2 |
Total cost | 71,014 | 100 |
(B) Angle iron/GI pipe polyhouse | | |
(a) Construction of polyhouse (funded under CM sanrakshitKhetiprogram) | | |
(i) HMNEH contribution | 60,950 | 42.9 |
(ii) State government contrition | 28,050 | 19.8 |
(iii) Farmer contribution | 32,900 | 23.2 |
(b) Construction of tank | | |
(i) Digging of tank | 15,000 | 10.6 |
(ii) Polythene cover | 5000 | 3.5 |
Total cost | 141,900 | 100 |
Table 9.
Cost of establishment of Polyhouse in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand (Rs).
Table 9.
Cost of establishment of Polyhouse in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand (Rs).
Particulars | 1000 m2 | 2000 m2 | 4000 m2 | 10,000 m2 |
---|
Cost of polyhouse | 907,200 | 1,800,000 | 3,600,000 | 8,750,000 |
Sprayers | 5000 | 5000 | - | 12,000 |
Generators | - | - | - | 67,500 |
Coolers | - | - | - | 25,000 |
Fencing | - | - | - | 87,500 |
Electricity line | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
Foggers | - | - | - | 15,000 |
Tullupump | - | - | - | 10,000 |
Drip irrigation | 50,400 | 100,000 | 200,000 | 500,000 |
Bore well motor | 35,000 | 50,000 | 35,000 | 75,000 |
Total Fixed Cost | 1,012,600 | 1,970,000 | 3,850,000 | 9,557,000 |
Table 10.
Cost of cultivation of major vegetable crops cultivated under polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand (size 100 m2; Amount in Rs).
Table 10.
Cost of cultivation of major vegetable crops cultivated under polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand (size 100 m2; Amount in Rs).
Particulars | Long Duration Tomato | Short Duration Tomato | Cucumber | Cauliflower | Cabbage | Capsicum | Green Pea | Brinjal | Potato |
---|
Labour CostField preparation | 833.3 | 833.3 | 908.3 | 1175.0 | 1154.2 | 1175.0 | 758.3 | 758.3 | 1050.0 |
Sowing | 516.7 | 516.7 | 525.0 | 516.7 | 516.7 | 516.7 | 420.8 | 575.0 | 875.0 |
Fertilizer and manure | 108.3 | 108.3 | 104.2 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 |
Weeding (women) | 511.1 | 511.1 | 533.3 | 475.0 | 475.0 | 600.0 | 455.2 | 455.2 | 463.9 |
PPC | 100.0 | 100.0 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 | 116.7 |
Irrigation | 600.0 | 525.0 | 395.8 | 412.5 | 412.5 | 779.2 | 575.0 | 575.0 | 583.3 |
Harvesting cost (female) | 833.3 | 700.0 | 594.4 | 344.4 | 365.6 | 558.3 | 558.3 | 558.3 | 498.0 |
Total male labour (man days) | 7.2 | 6.9 | 5.5 | 6.4 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 4.7 | 5.2 | 7.2 |
Total female labour (man days) | 6.7 | 6.1 | 5.6 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 5.1 | 5.1 |
Male Labour charges | 2158.3 | 2083.3 | 1654.2 | 1925.0 | 1904.2 | 1925.0 | 1412.5 | 1566.7 | 2158.3 |
Female Labour charges | 1344.4 | 1211.1 | 1127.8 | 819.4 | 840.6 | 1158.3 | 1013.6 | 1013.6 | 1022.2 |
total labour charges | 3502.8 | 3294.4 | 2781.9 | 2744.4 | 2744.7 | 3083.3 | 2426.1 | 2580.2 | 3180.6 |
Input costSeeds | 719.4 | 719.4 | 195.6 | 486.1 | 479.2 | 554.2 | 554.2 | 554.2 | 495.8 |
FYM | 861.1 | 750 | 850.0 | 650.0 | 0.0 | 625.0 | 550.0 | 686.1 | 725.0 |
NPK | 250.0 | 175 | 250.0 | 388.9 | 381.9 | 415.3 | 415.3 | 415.3 | 415.3 |
PPC | 447.2 | 350 | 228.9 | 311.1 | 298.6 | 346.1 | 346.1 | 546.1 | 625.3 |
Stacking & Pinching | 750.0 | 650 | 1000.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 436.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Marketing cost | 1866.7 | 1545 | 1827.8 | 991.7 | 1025.0 | 991.7 | 991.7 | 991.7 | 991.7 |
Total cost | 8397 | 7484 | 7134 | 5572 | 4929 | 6016 | 5719 | 5774 | 6434 |
Production | 737.5 | 515 | 1041.7 | 366.7 | 424.4 | 409.7 | 250.0 | 374.7 | 891.7 |
Average Price | 31.6 | 31.6 | 20.0 | 32.2 | 20.0 | 32.2 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 20.0 |
Gross Return | 22,125 | 16,274 | 20,833 | 11,000 | 8489 | 12,292 | 10,000 | 14,989 | 17,833 |
Net Return | 13,803 | 8790 | 14,624 | 6078 | 3559 | 6901 | 4831 | 9215 | 11,461 |
Table 11.
The cropping pattern practiced under polyhouse cultivation in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Table 11.
The cropping pattern practiced under polyhouse cultivation in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Cropping Pattern | Net Return Per Year (Rs) |
---|
Tomato (Pacheti) | 13,803 |
Capsicum–Pea | 11,732 |
Capsicum–Tomato | 15,691 |
Cucumber–Pea | 19,455 |
Cucumber–Tomato | 23,414 |
Tomato–Pea | 13,621 |
Tomato–Pea–Potato | 25,082 |
Tomato–Cabbage | 12,349 |
Brinjal–Pea–Potato | 25,507 |
Cucumber–cauliflower | 20,702 |
Table 12.
Cost of cultivation of gerbera for different size category of the polyhouses in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand (Rs).
Table 12.
Cost of cultivation of gerbera for different size category of the polyhouses in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand (Rs).
Particulars | 1000 m2 | 2000 m2 | 4000 m2 | 10,000 m2 |
---|
Amount (Rs) | % to Total | Amount (Rs) | % to Total | Amount (Rs) | % to Total | Amount (Rs) | % to Total |
---|
Bulb | 211,680 | 61.8 | 360,000 | 60.2 | 840,000 | 63.5 | 2,187,500 | 65.1 |
Bulb labour | 500 | 0.1 | 833 | 0.1 | 16,000 | 1.2 | 6833.3 | 0.2 |
Land preparation | 10,080 | 2.9 | 20,000 | 3.3 | 40,000 | 3.0 | 100,000 | 3.0 |
Sowing | 6720 | 2.0 | 13,333 | 2.2 | 26,666.7 | 2.0 | 66,666.7 | 2.0 |
Farm Yard Manure (FYM) | 8571.4 | 2.5 | 16,667 | 2.8 | 88,524.6 | 6.7 | 100,000 | 3.0 |
FYM Labour | 300 | 0.1 | 933 | 0.2 | 6300 | 0.5 | 4666.7 | 0.1 |
Rice Husk | 2857.1 | 0.8 | 8000 | 1.3 | 9263.2 | 0.7 | 28,666.7 | 0.9 |
Rice Husk labour | 300 | 0.1 | 800 | 0.1 | 583.3 | 0.0 | 4666.7 | 0.1 |
Neem khali | 2857.1 | 0.8 | 3333 | 0.6 | 10,000 | 0.8 | 10,000 | 0.3 |
Inter-culture | 3000 | 0.9 | 6250 | 1.0 | 15,789.5 | 1.2 | 28,000 | 0.8 |
Fertiliser | 7056 | 2.1 | 28,000 | 4.7 | 29,473.7 | 2.2 | 105,000 | 3.1 |
Plant protection chemicals (PPC) | 25,000 | 7.3 | 20,000 | 3.3 | 36,000 | 2.7 | 73,000 | 2.2 |
PPC labour | 1200 | 0.4 | 2500 | 0.4 | 2800 | 0.2 | 7500 | 0.2 |
Irrigation labour | 1200 | 0.4 | 3600 | 0.6 | 14,000 | 1.1 | 10,850 | 0.3 |
Irrigation electricity | 10,000 | 2.9 | 12,000 | 2.0 | 18,000 | 1.4 | 21,000 | 0.6 |
Harvesting | 2400 | 0.7 | 5000 | 0.8 | 10,500 | 0.8 | 36,000 | 1.1 |
Packaging | 12,600 | 3.7 | 25,000 | 4.2 | 45,000 | 3.4 | 190,000 | 5.7 |
Transport | 30,240 | 8.8 | 60,000 | 10.0 | 100,000 | 7.6 | 330,000 | 9.8 |
Rent | 6000 | 1.8 | 12,000 | 2.0 | 13,333.3 | 1.0 | 47,500 | 1.4 |
Total Variable Cost | 342,561.7 | | 598,250 | | 1,322,234 | | 3,357,850 | |
Table 13.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under wood-based polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Table 13.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under wood-based polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Crop Combination | Feasibility Criteria | without Subsidy | with Subsidy |
---|
5% | 7.50% | 10% | 5% | 7.50% | 10% |
---|
Tomato | NPV (Rs) | 43,632 | 27,048 | 14,002 | 63,632 | 47,048 | 34,002 |
B:C ratio | 1.44 | 1.29 | 1.15 | 1.80 | 1.63 | 1.48 |
IRR (%) | 13.5 | | | 21.2 | | |
Capsicum–pea | NPV (Rs) | 22,135 | 8767 | −1751 | 42,135 | 28,767 | 18,249 |
B:C ratio | 1.22 | 1.09 | 0.98 | 1.53 | 1.38 | 1.26 |
IRR | 9.5 | | | 16 | | |
Capsicum–tomato | NPV (Rs) | 63,233 | 43,718 | 28,365 | 83,233 | 63,718 | 48,365 |
B:C ratio | 1.63 | 1.46 | 1.31 | 2.05 | 1.85 | 1.68 |
IRR | 16.9 | | | 25.6 | | |
Cucumber–pea | NPV (Rs) | 96,589 | 72,084 | 52,808 | 116,589 | 92,084 | 72,808 |
B:C ratio | 1.97 | 1.76 | 1.58 | 2.46 | 2.23 | 2.03 |
IRR | 22 | | | 32.6 | | |
Cucumber–tomato | NPV (Rs) | 143,396 | 111,890 | 87,107 | 163,396 | 131,890 | 107,107 |
B:C ratio | 2.44 | 2.18 | 1.96 | 3.05 | 2.76 | 2.51 |
IRR | 29 | | | 42 | | |
Tomato–pea | NPV (Rs) | 41,742 | 25,441 | 12,617 | 61,742 | 45,441 | 32,617 |
B:C ratio | 1.42 | 1.27 | 1.14 | 1.78 | 1.61 | 1.46 |
IRR | 13.2 | | | 20.8 | | |
Tomato—pea–potato | NPV (Rs) | 160,701 | 126,607 | 99,788 | 180,701 | 146,607 | 119,788 |
B:C ratio | 2.61 | 2.34 | 2.10 | 3.27 | 2.96 | 2.69 |
IRR | 31.9 | | | 45.6 | | |
Tomato–cabbage | NPV (Rs) | 28,547 | 14,220 | 2948 | 48,547 | 34,220 | 22,948 |
B:C ratio | 1.29 | 1.15 | 1.03 | 1.61 | 1.46 | 1.32 |
IRR | 10.8 | | | 17.8 | | |
Brinjal–pea–potato | NPV (Rs) | 165,114 | 130,360 | 103,022 | 185,114 | 150,360 | 123,022 |
B:C ratio | 2.66 | 2.38 | 2.13 | 3.32 | 3.01 | 2.73 |
IRR | 32.6 | | | 46.5 | | |
Cucumber–cauliflower | NPV (Rs) | 115,243 | 87,948 | 66,478 | 135,243 | 107,948 | 86,478 |
B:C ratio | 2.16 | 1.93 | 1.73 | 2.70 | 2.44 | 2.22 |
IRR | 25.2 | | | 36.5 | | |
Table 14.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under GI frame polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Table 14.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under GI frame polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand.
Crop Combination | Feasibility Criteria | without Subsidy | with Subsidy |
---|
5% | 7.50% | 10% | 5% | 7.50% | 10% |
---|
Tomato | NPV (Rs) | −27,254 | −43,838 | −56,884 | 61,746 | 45,162 | 32,116 |
B:C ratio | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 1.76 | 1.59 | 1.44 |
IRR (%) | 1.9 | | 20.3 | | | |
Capsicum–pea | NPV (Rs) | −48,751 | −62,119 | −72,637 | 40,249 | 26,881 | 16,363 |
B:C ratio | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 1.49 | 1.35 | 1.22 |
IRR | −1% | | | 15.5 | | |
Capsicum–tomato | NPV (Rs) | −7653 | −27,168 | −42,521 | 81,347 | 61,832 | 46,479 |
B:C ratio | 0.96 | 0.84 | 0.74 | 2.00 | 1.81 | 1.64 |
IRR | 4.2 | | | 24.5 | | |
Cucumber–pea | NPV (Rs) | 25,703 | 1198 | −18,078 | 114,703 | 90,198 | 70,922 |
B:C ratio | 1.15 | 1.01 | 0.89 | 2.41 | 2.18 | 1.97 |
IRR | 7.6 | | | 31.4 | | |
Cucumber–tomato | NPV (Rs) | 72,510 | 41,004 | 16,221 | 161,510 | 130,004 | 105,221 |
B:C ratio | 1.43 | 1.25 | 1.10 | 2.98 | 2.70 | 2.44 |
IRR | 12 | | | 40.5 | | |
Tomato–pea | NPV (Rs) | −29,144 | −45,445 | −58,269 | 59,856 | 43,555 | 30,731 |
B:C ratio | 0.83 | 0.73 | 0.64 | 1.73 | 1.57 | 1.42 |
IRR | 1.70 | | | 19.9 | | |
Tomato–pea–potato | NPV (Rs) | 89,815 | 55,721 | 28,902 | 178,815 | 144,721 | 117,902 |
B:C ratio | 1.53 | 1.34 | 1.18 | 3.19 | 2.89 | 2.62 |
IRR | 13.50 | | | 43.90 | | |
Tomato–cabbage | NPV (Rs) | −42,339 | −56,666 | −67,938 | 46,661 | 32,334 | 21,062 |
B:C ratio | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.58 | 1.57 | 1.42 | 1.29 |
IRR | 0 | | | 17 | | |
Brinjal–pea–potato | NPV (Rs) | 94,228 | 59,474 | 32,136 | 183,228 | 148,474 | 121,136 |
B:C ratio | 1.55 | 1.36 | 1.20 | 3.25 | 2.94 | 2.66 |
IRR | 13.9 | | | 44.7 | | |
Cucumber with cauliflower | NPV (Rs) | 44,357 | 17,062 | −4408 | 133,357 | 106,062 | 84,592 |
B:C ratio | 1.26 | 1.10 | 0.97 | 2.64 | 2.38 | 2.16 |
IRR | 9.4 | | | 35.1 | | |
Table 15.
Feasibility of polyhouse cultivation of Gerbera in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand, India.
Table 15.
Feasibility of polyhouse cultivation of Gerbera in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand, India.
| Benefit–Cost Ratio | Net Present Value (Lakh Rs) | IRR (%) |
---|
| 5% | 7.50% | 10% | 15% | 5% | 7.50% | 10% | 15% |
---|
Without subsidy on polyhouses | | | | | | | |
1000 m2 | 1.52 | 1.46 | 1.36 | 1.22 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 24 |
2000 m2 | 1.76 | 1.68 | 1.56 | 1.39 | 55 | 40 | 29 | 16 | 31 |
4000 m2 | 1.89 | 1.81 | 1.68 | 1.49 | 129 | 95 | 70 | 40 | 34 |
10,000 m2 | 1.83 | 1.74 | 1.60 | 1.41 | 308 | 223 | 158 | 85 | 39 |
With subsidy on polyhouse | | | | | | | |
1000 m2 | 1.75 | 1.69 | 1.63 | 1.52 | 24 | 19 | 15 | 9 | 48 |
2000 m2 | 2.03 | 1.97 | 1.90 | 1.76 | 61 | 48 | 38 | 25 | 61 |
4000 m2 | 2.37 | 2.28 | 2.20 | 2.04 | 158 | 124 | 99 | 66 | 77 |
10,000 m2 | 2.27 | 2.19 | 2.12 | 1.97 | 384 | 301 | 240 | 159 | 75 |
With subsidy on polyhouse and planting material | | | | | | | |
1000 m2 | 1.81 | 1.76 | 1.71 | 1.61 | 25 | 20 | 16 | 10 | 57 |
2000 m2 | 2.10 | 2.04 | 1.98 | 1.85 | 63 | 50 | 40 | 26 | 70 |
4000 m2 | 2.47 | 2.39 | 2.32 | 2.17 | 163 | 129 | 103 | 70 | 88 |
10,000 m2 | 3.04 | 2.93 | 2.82 | 2.61 | 460 | 364 | 293 | 199 | 99 |
Table 16.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under wood-based polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand under climate change situations.
Table 16.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under wood-based polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand under climate change situations.
Crop Combination | without Subsidy | with Subsidy |
---|
5% | 7.50% | 10% | 5% | 7.50% | 10% |
---|
NPV (Rs) | | | | | | |
Tomato | 23,710 | 9708 | −1330 | 43,710 | 29,708 | 18,670 |
Capsicum with pea | 3657 | −7336 | −16,005 | 23,657 | 12,664 | 3995 |
Capsicum with tomato | 41,995 | 25,248 | 12,050 | 61,995 | 45,248 | 32,050 |
Cucumber with pea | 73,111 | 51,694 | 34,821 | 93,111 | 71,694 | 54,821 |
Cucumber with tomato | 116,774 | 88,804 | 66,773 | 136,774 | 108,804 | 86,773 |
Tomato with pea | 21,947 | 8209 | −2620 | 41,947 | 28,209 | 17,380 |
Tomato pea potato | 132,917 | 102,524 | 78,586 | 152,917 | 122,524 | 98,586 |
Tomato with cabbage | 9639 | −2252 | −11,638 | 29,639 | 17,748 | 8372 |
Brinjal pea potato | 137,034 | 106,023 | 81,599 | 157,034 | 126,023 | 101,599 |
Cucumber with cauliflower | 90,512 | 66,484 | 47,555 | 110,512 | 86,484 | 67,555 |
B:C ratio | | | | | | |
Tomato | 1.22 | 1.09 | 0.99 | 1.49 | 1.35 | 1.24 |
Capsicum with pea | 1.03 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 1.26 | 1.15 | 1.05 |
Capsicum with tomato | 1.38 | 1.24 | 1.12 | 1.69 | 1.54 | 1.41 |
Cucumber with pea | 1.67 | 1.5 | 1.35 | 2.04 | 1.85 | 1.69 |
Cucumber with tomato | 2.06 | 1.85 | 1.67 | 2.52 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
Tomato with pea | 1.2 | 1.08 | 0.97 | 1.47 | 1.34 | 1.22 |
Tomato pea potato | 2.21 | 1.99 | 1.79 | 2.7 | 2.46 | 2.25 |
Tomato with cabbage | 1.09 | 0.98 | 0.88 | 1.33 | 1.21 | 1.11 |
Brinjal pea potato | 2.25 | 2.02 | 1.82 | 2.75 | 2.5 | 2.28 |
Cucumber with cauliflower | 1.82 | 1.64 | 1.48 | 2.23 | 2.03 | 1.85 |
IRR (%) | | | | | | |
Tomato | 10 | | | 16 | | |
Capsicum with pea | 6 | | | 11 | | |
Capsicum with tomato | 13 | | | 20 | | |
Cucumber with pea | 18 | | | 27 | | |
Cucumber with tomato | 25 | | | 35 | | |
Tomato with Pea | 9 | | | 16 | | |
Tomato, Pea, Potato | 27 | | | 38 | | |
Tomato with Cabbage | 7 | | | 13 | | |
Brinjal pea potato | 28 | | | 39 | | |
Cucumber with cauliflower | 21 | | | 30 | | |
Table 17.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under GI-frame polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand under climate change conditions.
Table 17.
Feasibility analysis of protected cultivation of vegetables under GI-frame polyhouse in Almora district of Uttarakhand under climate change conditions.
Crop Combination | without Subsidy | with Subsidy |
---|
5% | 7.50% | 10% | 5% | 7.50% | 10% |
---|
NPV (Rs) | | | | | | |
Tomato | −47,176 | −61,178 | −72,216 | 41,824 | 27,822 | 16,784 |
Capsicum with Pea | −67,229 | −78,222 | −86,891 | 21,771 | 10,778 | 2109 |
Capsicum with tomato | −28,891 | −45,638 | −58,836 | 60,109 | 43,362 | 30,164 |
Cucumber with pea | 2225 | −19,192 | −36,065 | 91,225 | 69,808 | 52,935 |
Cucumber with tomato | 45,888 | 17,918 | −4113 | 134,888 | 106,918 | 84,887 |
Tomato with pea | −48,939 | −62,677 | −73,506 | 40,061 | 26,323 | 15,494 |
Tomato pea potato | 62,031 | 31,638 | 7700 | 151,031 | 120,638 | 96,700 |
Tomato with cabbage | −61,247 | −73,138 | −82,514 | 27,753 | 15,862 | 6486 |
Brinjal pea potato | 66,148 | 35,137 | 10,713 | 155,148 | 124,137 | 99,713 |
Cucumber with cauliflower | 19,626 | −4402 | −23,331 | 108,626 | 84,598 | 65,669 |
B:C ratio | | | | | | |
Tomato | 0.74 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 1.46 | 1.32 | 1.21 |
Capsicum with pea | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 1.24 | 1.13 | 1.03 |
Capsicum with tomato | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.65 | 1.65 | 1.51 | 1.37 |
Cucumber with pea | 1.01 | 0.89 | 0.79 | 1.99 | 1.81 | 1.65 |
Cucumber with tomato | 1.25 | 1.1 | 0.98 | 2.47 | 2.25 | 2.05 |
Tomato with pea | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.57 | 1.44 | 1.31 | 1.19 |
Tomato pea potato | 1.34 | 1.18 | 1.05 | 2.64 | 2.41 | 2.19 |
Tomato with cabbage | 0.66 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 1.3 | 1.18 | 1.08 |
Brinjal pea potato | 1.37 | 1.2 | 1.06 | 2.69 | 2.45 | 2.23 |
Cucumber with cauliflower | 1.11 | 0.97 | 0.86 | 2.18 | 1.99 | 1.81 |
IRR (%) | | | | | | |
Tomato | −1 | | | 15 | | |
Capsicum with pea | −3 | | | 11 | | |
Capsicum with tomato | 2 | | | 19 | | |
Cucumber with pea | 5 | | | 26 | | |
Cucumber with tomato | 9 | | | 34 | | |
Tomato with pea | −1 | | | 15 | | |
Tomato pea potato | 11 | | | 37 | | |
Tomato with cabbage | −2 | | | 12 | | |
Brinjal pea potato | 11 | | | 38 | | |
Cucumber with cauliflower | 7 | | | 29 | | |
Table 18.
Feasibility of polyhouse cultivation of Gerbera under climate change conditions.
Table 18.
Feasibility of polyhouse cultivation of Gerbera under climate change conditions.
Sl. No. | Size of Polyhouse | Benefit–Cost Ratio | Net Present Value (Lakh Rs) | IRR (%) |
---|
5% | 7.50% | 10% | 15% | 5% | 7.50% | 10% | 15% |
---|
A. Without subsidy on polyhouse | | | | | |
| 1000 m2 | 1.40 | 1.34 | 1.25 | 1.11 | 16 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 20 |
| 2000 m2 | 1.56 | 1.49 | 1.38 | 1.22 | 42 | 30 | 20 | 9 | 24 |
| 4000 m2 | 1.89 | 1.81 | 1.68 | 1.49 | 129 | 95 | 70 | 40 | 34 |
| 10,000 m2 | 1.83 | 1.74 | 1.60 | 1.41 | 308 | 223 | 158 | 85 | 31 |
B. With subsidy on polyhouse | | | | | |
| 1000 m2 | 1.55 | 1.49 | 1.43 | 1.32 | 18 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 35 |
| 2000 m2 | 1.86 | 1.79 | 1.73 | 1.60 | 53 | 41 | 32 | 20 | 51 |
| 4000 m2 | 2.16 | 2.08 | 2.00 | 1.85 | 140 | 109 | 86 | 56 | 66 |
| 10,000 m2 | 2.02 | 1.94 | 1.86 | 1.71 | 317 | 244 | 191 | 121 | 60 |
C. With subsidy on polyhouse and planting material | | | | | |
| 1000 m2 | 1.66 | 1.61 | 1.56 | 1.46 | 21 | 16 | 13 | 8 | 46 |
| 2000 m2 | 1.92 | 1.86 | 1.80 | 1.68 | 55 | 42 | 33 | 22 | 56 |
| 4000 m2 | 2.44 | 2.40 | 2.35 | 2.26 | 153 | 122 | 99 | 68 | 77 |
| 10,000 m2 | 2.93 | 2.79 | 2.66 | 2.42 | 416 | 325 | 259 | 172 | 87 |
Table 19.
Marketing channel followed by the farmers of Almora for cultivation and sale of vegetables under polyhouses.
Table 20.
Marketing channel followed by the farmers of Dehradun for cultivation and sale of Gerbera under polyhouses.
Table 21.
Constraints faced by polyhouse farmers.
Table 21.
Constraints faced by polyhouse farmers.
Particulars | % of Farmers Reported the Constraints | Rank |
---|
Non-availability of proper market | 93.33 | 1 |
Poor price received | 91.67 | 2 |
Non-availability of inputs | 86.67 | 3 |
Transportation problems | 83.33 | 4 |
Non-availability of skilled labor | 80.00 | 5 |
Difficulty in getting subsidy | 76.67 | 6 |
Difficulty in getting credit | 75.00 | 7 |
Higher risk | 75.00 | 7 |
High wages of labor | 73.33 | 8 |
Lack of local technical expertise | 71.67 | 9 |
Poor storage facilities | 68.33 | 10 |
Lack of pack houses | 66.67 | 11 |
Lack of processing facility | 58.33 | 12 |
Lack of support from Govt./institution | 53.33 | 13 |
High incidence of insect pest or diseases | 50.00 | 14 |
Table 22.
Training needs of polyhouse cultivators.
Table 22.
Training needs of polyhouse cultivators.
Particulars | % of Farmers Reported the Need for Training | Rank |
---|
Vegetable cultivation | 83.33 | 1 |
Agronomic practices | 80.00 | 2 |
Nursery raising | 75.00 | 3 |
Repair and maintenance of structures | 66.67 | 4 |
Fertigation unit | 61.67 | 5 |
Flower cultivation | 50.00 | 6 |
Processing | 48.33 | 7 |
Trainings on export aspects | 45.00 | 8 |
Packaging | 41.67 | 9 |
Table 23.
Constraints in the adoption of polyhouse cultivation in Dehradun district of Uttaranchal.
Table 23.
Constraints in the adoption of polyhouse cultivation in Dehradun district of Uttaranchal.
Particulars | Rank |
---|
High incidence of insect pest or diseases | I |
Lack of local technical expertise | II |
Non-availability of skilled labor | III |
Lack of support from government institutions | IV |
Non-availability of proper market | VI |
High wages of labor | VII |
Poor price received | VIII |
Difficulty in getting credit | VIII |
High cost of planting material | IX |
Difficulty in getting subsidy | IX |
Transportation problems | X |
Table 24.
Training needs of polyhouse cultivators.
Table 24.
Training needs of polyhouse cultivators.
Particulars | Rank |
---|
Agronomic practices | I |
Flower cultivation | II |
Nursery raising | III |
Vegetable cultivation | IV |
Control of pest and diseases | IV |
Fertigation unit | V |
Repair and maintenance structure | VI |
Export process and market identification | VII |
Packaging | VIII |
Table 25.
Reasons for discontinuation of protected cultivation.
Table 25.
Reasons for discontinuation of protected cultivation.
Particulars | Rank |
---|
Poor quality seeds/planting material | 1 |
Costly seeds/planting material | 2 |
Higher risk | 2 |
Poor returns due to low price | 2 |
Costly liquid fertilizer | 3 |
Marketing problems | 3 |
High maintenance cost | 3 |
Inadequate technical help | 3 |
Poor returns due to low yield | 4 |
Nematode infestation | 5 |
Lack of supervision | 6 |
Poor cold chain facility | 7 |
Lack of trainings | 7 |
Subsidy on planting material/seed/fertilizer is not available | 7 |
Natural calamities | 8 |