Himachal’s Natural Apple Farming Boom Reveals What Growers Need to Keep It Growing

Research from Himachal Pradesh captures how quickly interest in natural farming can spread, and how difficult it can be to understand what happens after that early surge.

An apple grower's decision to change farming methods reaches beyond the orchard, touching household income, pest control, the cost of inputs and the search for buyers who will pay a fair price. Research from Himachal Pradesh captures how quickly interest in natural farming can spread, and how difficult it can be to understand what happens after that early surge.

The study, "Growth, instability and adoption trends of natural farming in apple cultivation in Himachal Pradesh, India," published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, examines conventional apple cultivation from 2011 to 2024 and registered natural-farming area from 2018 onwards.

Dinesh Kumar and his colleagues used government records covering 12 districts, including information on 24,595 registered natural-farming apple growers, to explore changes in orchard area, adoption, production and productivity. The findings describe a promising farming movement whose future depends on practical support, reliable markets and a clearer picture of what growers experience on their farms.

A Different Way to Grow Apples

Himachal Pradesh introduced Subhash Palekar Natural Farming, or SPNF, through its Prakritik Kheti Khushhal Kisan Yojana in 2018. The approach encourages farmers to reduce dependence on purchased synthetic inputs and use locally prepared formulations such as jeevamrit and beejamrit.

SPNF differs from certified organic farming, which can involve purchased approved inputs and third-party certification. Its emphasis on preparations made on the farm offers an appealing possibility for growers concerned about rising expenses and soil health, although the "zero-budget" description does not mean farming involves no labour or other costs.

The adoption records show that most registered growers were still learning. Intermediate, two-star adoption accounted for 62.12% of farmers, initial, one-star adoption covered 29.82%, and advanced, three-star adoption represented just 8.06%. 56.09% had practised SPNF for less than a year, 19.77% for up to two years, and 24.14% for more than two years.

These figures suggest that registration alone tells only part of the story, because learning to manage an established apple orchard through a different farming system takes sustained guidance and experience.

Rapid Expansion Followed by a Sharp Fall in Registered Area

Registered natural-farming apple area increased from 224.35 hectares in 2018 to 14,223.85 hectares in 2022, reaching a scale far beyond its small starting point. By 2024, the recorded area had fallen to 4,354.04 hectares. The paper reports compound annual growth of 182.18% during the 2018–2022 expansion and an annual contraction of 44.67% during 2022–2024. Across the full period, annual growth remained positive at 63.93%, a figure heavily influenced by the very small initial area.

The researchers caution against reading the decline as proof that growers returned to conventional farming. These were administrative records, rather than repeated field checks of individual orchards, and changes in registration, certification or classification could explain some of the reduction. The authors consider those administrative changes a likely explanation, but the available data cannot establish exactly what happened.

Conventional apple area grew from 103,644 hectares in 2011 to 116,338 hectares in 2024, recording annual growth of 0.89%. Its expansion slowed from 1.40% in 2011–2017 to 0.46% in 2018–2024. Average conventional area was significantly higher in the later period, increasing from about 108,933 to 115,031 hectares. The statistical comparison produced a p-value of approximately 0.002, but it does not show that SPNF caused either the increase in area or the slowdown in expansion.

A measure that adjusts variability for the underlying trend recorded instability of 0.96% for conventional area and 81.52% for registered natural-farming area across their respective study periods. The contrast captures the steady footprint of established orchards and the much more uneven development of a newer programme.

More Orchard Land Does Not Guarantee More Apples

Conventional orchard area changed gradually, but production and productivity moved sharply from year to year. Production rose by 94.04% in 2019 and fell by 32.74% in 2020; productivity, meaning output per hectare, increased by 92.36% and dropped by 33.04% in those same years.

Weather, snowfall, chilling hours, hailstorms, orchard age and disruptions to farm operations help explain why a relatively stable land area can deliver very different harvests. The paper discusses these pressures using earlier research, rather than measuring their separate contributions through its own statistical models.

Shimla had the largest average apple area, around 40,302 hectares, followed by Kullu, Mandi, Chamba and Kinnaur. Shimla also led production, but its productivity declined by about 0.98% annually, showing that expanding orchard area does not automatically improve output per hectare.

Mandi, Sirmour and Lahaul and Spiti recorded strong production and productivity growth. Chamba and Sirmour experienced small declines in apple area, and Kangra recorded declining production and productivity despite area expansion. High percentage increases in Una and Bilaspur came from tiny starting areas, making those figures easy to overinterpret.

The authors discuss these patterns in relation to local growing conditions and the movement of apple cultivation towards cooler locations. District averages cannot establish how an individual orchard will perform under natural farming.

What Growers Need Beyond the First Training Session

Earlier research cited in the paper reported 56.53% lower variable cultivation costs and 27.41% higher net returns in natural-farming apple orchards compared with conventional orchards. Those findings help explain the appeal of SPNF, but they are separate evidence: this study did not measure natural-farming yields, fruit quality or farm income.

The paper discusses labour demands, difficulties in applying natural-farming methods across larger orchards and pest-management concerns, including San Jose scale. Its recommendations centre on apple-specific training, stronger local advisory services and opportunities for experienced farmers to share practical knowledge.

Reliable buyers, premium procurement arrangements and regional branding could give growers a stronger financial reason to continue. Temporary income support during conversion is another proposal, although its design would require farm-level economic research because this study did not measure transition-related income losses.

The researchers also recommend exploring natural farming alongside high-density planting and micro-irrigation, supported by long-term comparisons of yield, soil health and net returns across districts.