Evaluation of economic feasibility of high density planting system over conventional cotton in Nagarkurnool district of Telangana

Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium spp.) is one of the most important commercial fibre crops and plays a significant role in India's agricultural economy, textile industry and rural employment. Despite its importance, cotton productivity in India remains relatively low compared with the potential productivity achieved under improved production technologies. The crop is predominantly cultivated under rainfed conditions, where variability in rainfall, pest and disease incidence, rising labour costs and increasing input prices continue to constrain farm profitability. These challenges have created a need for production technologies that can improve productivity while making more efficient use of land, labour and other farm resources. The conventional cotton production system generally uses wider plant spacing and relatively low plant population, with farmers relying largely on long-duration hybrids. Although this system has been widely adopted, low plant population and prolonged crop duration can limit productivity and increase the dependence on manual operations, particularly harvesting. Pradeep and Murthy (2019) [5] highlighted that the plant population under conventional Indian cotton cultivation is considerably lower than that used in high-density systems in several major cottonproducing countries, indicating scope for improving productivity through suitable plant architecture and closer spacing. High Density Planting System (HDPS) has emerged as an alternative production technology aimed at increasing the number of plants per unit area through closer spacing and the use of suitable compact and early-maturing cotton genotypes. The system is designed to exploit available land and solar radiation more effectively and potentially increase seed cotton yield per unit area. Kumar et al., 2020 [3] identified HDPS as a promising alternative production system, particularly because it can help address concerns related to crop duration, productivity and the cost of manual harvesting. The success of HDPS depends considerably on the selection of suitable genotypes, planting geometry and nutrient management. Bharathi (2018) [1] reported that closer spacing of 60 × 10 cm under HDPS resulted in higher seed cotton yield, nutrient uptake, gross returns, net returns and benefit-cost ratio than wider spacing treatments. Similarly, Vinay et al. (2023) [9] demonstrated that genotype and integrated nutrient management practices substantially influenced productivity and profitability under HDPS cotton, emphasizing the importance of matching crop management practices with high-density cultivation. (Bharathi, S. 2018) [1] . The economic performance of HDPS is particularly important because higher plant density may alter the requirement for seed, labour, machinery, fertilizers and plant protection inputs. While increased plant population can improve yield, excessive density or inappropriate crop geometry may result in competition among plants for nutrients, moisture and light. Therefore, the economic advantage of HDPS cannot be assessed solely from yield; it must also be evaluated in terms of cost of cultivation, gross returns, net returns, benefit-cost ratio and efficiency of resource utilization. This makes an economic comparison between HDPS and conventional cotton essential for understanding its suitability under farmers' field conditions. (Vinay et al., 2023) [9] . Recent field evidence further indicates the potential of HDPS to improve cotton productivity. Thakare et al. (2026) [8] , based on field trials across 120 farms in Akola district of Maharashtra, reported significantly higher yield under HDPS with 90 × 15 cm spacing compared with conventional 120 × 30 cm spacing. The study also observed better canopy development, earlier maturity and improved resource-use efficiency under HDPS. The relevance of HDPS has also increased because of the growing emphasis on improving cotton productivity through public-sector programmes. The Government of India has promoted HDPS demonstrations under the Special Project on Cotton, particularly for rainfed areas, with the objective of validating suitable agronomic practices and improving and sustaining cotton yields. The programme specifically emphasizes early-maturing, compact plant types suitable for high-density cultivation. In Telangana, HDPS is of particular interest because cotton is an important commercial crop and a large proportion of cultivation is exposed to rainfall variability and increasing production costs. Research conducted at Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University has examined HDPS in relation to genotype selection, nutrient management, productivity and profitability, providing an important technological basis for evaluating its adoption in the state. However, the benefits of HDPS may vary according to agroclimatic conditions, soil characteristics, genotype, management practices and farmers' ability to maintain the recommended plant geometry. Adoption may also be influenced by factors such as seed cost, availability of suitable varieties, labour availability, mechanization and farmers' technical knowledge. Therefore, location-specific economic assessment is necessary before recommending HDPS as a superior alternative to conventional cotton cultivation. The recent study from Mahabubabad district of Telangana also emphasizes the importance of examining productivity, profitability and adoption gaps under farmers' field conditions. (Malathi et al., 2026) [4] . Against this background, a comparative assessment of HDPS and conventional cotton cultivation is important for identifying differences in resource use, production costs, productivity and profitability. Such an assessment can provide empirical evidence on whether the higher plant population associated with HDPS translates into improved economic returns for farmers. The present study therefore focuses on comparing the cost of cultivation, resource-use efficiency, productivity and profitability of HDPS and conventional cotton cultivation, with the aim of generating location-specific evidence that can support farmers, extension agencies and policymakers in promoting economically viable cotton production systems.

Materials and Methods

Cost of Cultivation

The information related to the cost of cotton cultivation was collected separately from both High Density Planting System (HDPS) Cotton growers and conventional cotton growers through personal interviews using a pre-tested schedule. Information on different cost items such as human labour, machine labour, bullock labour, seed, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals, irrigation, and other cultivation expenses was recorded. The total expenditure on each input was calculated, and its percentage share in the total cost of cultivation was worked out. The cost of cultivation was estimated using the standard cost concepts recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), namely Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3. These cost concepts were used to compare the cost of cultivation between HDPS and conventional cotton farming.

Cost concepts

Farm Income Measures 1) Gross Returns:

The value of the main product plus the value of the by-product. The primary products and byproducts must be imputed using the current market price or the village level pricing in effect at the time of inquiry. 2) Net Returns: Gross income -Total cost of cultivation 3) Farm Business Income: This is the return on the farm operator's and his family's labour and investment on owned land and fixed capital.

Farm business income = Gross income -Cost A1 ) for HDPS cotton. Thus, the overall variable cost was slightly higher under HDPS cotton, mainly due to greater expenditure on hired labour, machinery labour and certain other inputs. Table 1 indicates that labour was the most important component of variable cost in both cultivation systems. Although HDPS cotton involved a somewhat higher total variable expenditure, it recorded lower expenditure on family labour, fertilizers, plant protection and transport compared with conventional cotton. The difference in the composition of variable costs reflects the distinct input-use pattern followed by farmers under the two cotton production systems. Overall, Table 1 indicates that labour was the most important component of variable cost in both cultivation systems. Although HDPS cotton involved a somewhat higher total variable expenditure, it recorded lower expenditure on family labour, fertilizers, plant protection and transport compared with conventional cotton. The difference in the composition of variable costs reflects the distinct input-use pattern followed by farmers under the two cotton production systems.

Operation-wise Human and Machine Labour Utilization Profile

The Operation-wise utilization of human and machine labour under conventional and HDPS cotton cultivation is presented in Table 2. The results show differences in labour use across various field operations between the two production systems. Under conventional cotton cultivation, human labour requirement was 12.50 days for land preparation and sowing, 22.40 days for inter cultivation and weeding, 8.60 days for fertilizer and chemical spraying, 38.20 days for picking and harvesting, and 4.10 days for post-harvest operations and transport. The corresponding human labour requirements under HDPS cotton were 10.20, 18.60, 7.80, 42.50 and 3.20 days, respectively. As shown in Table 2, the total human labour requirement was 85.80 days under conventional cotton compared with 82.30 days under HDPS cotton. Thus, HDPS cultivation used 3.50 fewer human labour days overall. In contrast, total machinery utilization was considerably higher under HDPS at 15.30 hours, compared with 9.60 hours under conventional cultivation. This indicates that HDPS cultivation involved greater use of machinery while reducing the overall requirement for human labour.

The findings suggest that HDPS cotton cultivation was relatively more machinery-intensive and slightly less dependent on human labour than conventional cultivation. However, the higher human labour requirement for picking and harvesting under HDPS remains an important consideration because of the higher plant population and increased harvesting workload.

Comparative Fixed Cost Analysis of Conventional and HDPS Cotton

The expenditure incurred under different fixed cost components for conventional and HDPS cotton cultivation is presented in Table 3. Fixed costs mainly consisted of the rental value of owned land, rental value of leased-in land, depreciation on farm assets and interest on fixed capital. The results indicate some differences in the composition of fixed costs between the two cultivation systems. Under conventional cotton cultivation, the rental value of own land was estimated at ₹15,746.30 (11.93%), while the corresponding value under HDPS cotton was ₹14,326.00 (10.14%). The rental value of leased-in land was almost similar in both systems, amounting to ₹17,025.40 (12.89%) under conventional cotton and ₹17,032.71 (12.05%) under HDPS cotton. Thus, leased-in land constituted the major component of fixed cost in both production systems. The depreciation cost was relatively small in both groups. It amounted to ₹408.09 (0.31%) under conventional cotton and increased slightly to ₹505.61 (0.36%) under HDPS cotton. In contrast, the expenditure represented by interest on fixed capital was considerably higher for HDPS cotton. It was estimated at ₹7,600.95 (5.38%), compared with ₹2,981.92 (2.26%) under conventional cultivation. The higher value under HDPS may be related to the greater investment in fixed assets and machinery associated with the production system. The total fixed cost amounted to ₹36,161.71 (27.39%) for conventional cotton, whereas it was ₹39,465.27 (27.92%) for HDPS cotton. Thus, HDPS cultivation involved a higher fixed cost by approximately ₹3,303.56 per hectare compared with conventional cotton. Although the difference in the share of total fixed cost was relatively small, the composition of fixed expenditure differed between the two systems. Percentages in parentheses are calculated as a percentage of the total cost of cultivation of conventional cotton (132,039.97 =100%) and total cost of cultivation of HDPS Cotton (₹141,329.76 = 100%) Table 3 indicates that rental value of leased-in land was the largest component of fixed cost in both cultivation systems. HDPS cotton recorded a somewhat higher total fixed cost, mainly due to the substantially greater interest on fixed capital and slightly higher depreciation expenditure. This reflects the comparatively greater investment requirement associated with the HDPS production system.

Comparative Total Cost Analysis of Conventional and HDPS Cotton

The total cost of cotton cultivation was found to be higher under the High Density Planting System (HDPS) compared to the conventional system. As shown in Table 4, the total cost of cultivation was ₹1,41,329.76 ha⁻¹ for HDPS cotton, whereas it was ₹1,32,039.97 ha⁻¹ for conventional cotton. The higher cost under HDPS was mainly due to greater expenditure on hired labour, machinery labour, working capital and interest on fixed capital. This difference in cost was mainly associated with the more intensive management practices followed in HDPS cotton. Despite the higher cost, HDPS provided better productivity and returns, indicating that the additional investment was economically worthwhile and contributed to higher profitability.

Comparative Cost Concepts in Cotton Cultivation

The various CACP cost concepts for conventional and HDPS cotton are presented in Table 5 which shows that the cost of cultivation was consistently higher under HDPS cotton at all cost levels. Cost A1 was ₹81,451.39 ha⁻¹ for conventional cotton and ₹88,712.16 ha⁻¹ for HDPS cotton, while Cost A2 was ₹98,476.79 ha⁻¹ and ₹1,05,744.87 ha⁻¹, respectively. 5 indicates that HDPS cotton involved a higher cost of cultivation across all CACP cost concepts, mainly due to the relatively greater use of labour, machinery and other production inputs.

As indicated in Table 6, the returns and profitability of HDPS cotton were comparatively better than those of conventional cotton. HDPS cotton recorded a yield of 30.46 quintals ha⁻¹, while conventional cotton recorded 25.82 quintals ha⁻¹. The price received per quintal was slightly lower under HDPS cotton (₹7,197.78) than under conventional cotton (₹7,217.78). However, due to the higher yield, HDPS cotton generated a gross income of ₹2,19,211.37 ha⁻¹ compared to ₹1,86,161.08 ha⁻¹ under conventional cotton. Farm business income was ₹1,30,499.21 ha⁻¹ under HDPS and ₹1,04,709.69 ha⁻¹ under conventional cotton, while family labour income was ₹91,539.55 and ₹68,956.07 ha⁻¹, respectively. The net income obtained from HDPS cotton was ₹77,881.61 ha⁻¹, which was higher than ₹54,121.11 ha⁻¹ under conventional cotton. Further, the benefitcost ratio was 1.55 for HDPS cotton compared to 1.41 for conventional cotton. Thus, the results showed that HDPS cotton provided higher returns and profitability than conventional cotton, even though its cost of cultivation was relatively higher. These findings are consistent with Sam et al. (2023) [7] , Kumar and Dey, Ramanjaneyulu et al. (2024) [6] . The present study revealed that the total cost of cultivation (Cost C2) was higher under the High-Density Planting System (HDPS) (₹1,41,329.76 ha⁻¹) than under conventional cotton cultivation (₹1,32,039.97 ha⁻¹). The higher cultivation cost was mainly due to increased expenditure on hired labour, machinery labour and working capital required for intensive crop management.

Break-Even and Sensitivity Analysis of Conventional vs. HDPS Cotton Cultivation

The break-even and sensitivity analysis presented in Table 7 showed that HDPS cotton performed better than conventional cotton in terms of yield and economic safety. The actual yield obtained under HDPS cotton was 30.46 q/ha, which was 17.97 per cent higher than the 25.82 q/ha recorded under conventional cotton. The output price under HDPS cotton was ₹7,197.78 per quintal, which was marginally lower by 0.28 per cent compared to ₹7,217.78 per quintal under conventional cotton.

The break-even yield at Cost A2 was 14.69 q/ha for HDPS cotton compared to 13.64 q/ha for conventional cotton, showing an increase of 7.70 per cent. Similarly, the break-even yield at Cost C2 was 19.64 q/ha under HDPS and 18.29 q/ha under conventional cotton, indicating a 7.38 per cent increase. The break-even price at Cost C2 was lower under HDPS cotton at ₹4,639.85 per quintal compared to ₹5,113.86 per quintal under conventional cotton, representing a reduction of 9.27 per cent.

Further, the margin of safety in yield was higher under HDPS cotton at 35.52 percent compared to 29.16 percent under conventional cotton. Overall, the analysis indicated that HDPS cotton had a higher yield potential and a greater margin of safety, while its lower break-even price suggested better capacity to withstand adverse price conditions.

Conclusion

The study concludes that HDPS cotton is economically more advantageous than conventional cotton despite its higher cultivation cost. HDPS recorded higher yield (30.46 q/ha), gross returns (₹2,19,211.37/ha), net returns (₹77,881.61/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (1.55) compared with conventional cotton. The higher yield and profitability, along with better economic safety, indicate that HDPS can be a viable alternative to conventional cotton cultivation in the study area.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementWe are grateful to College of Agriculture Latur, VNMKV, Parbhani for the financial assistance and infrastructural facilities provided for the conduct of this research work.

References

1. Bharathi S. Nutrient uptake and economics of cotton in high density planting system under varied plant spacing and nitrogen levels. The Journal of Research ANGRAU. 2018;46(1):26-29.
2. Kumar MA, Dey G, Mukhopadhyay S. Economics of cultivation of cotton in Adilabad district of Telangana state. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(6):2037-2041.
3. Kumar M, Premalatha N, Mahalingam L, Sakthivel N, Senguttuvan K, Latha P. High density planting system of cotton in India: status and breeding strategies. IntechOpen; 2020.
4. Malathi S, Kishore Kumar N, Kranthi Kumar B, Rambabu E. High density planting system (HDPS) in cotton: productivity, profitability, and adoption gaps in Mahabubabad district, Telangana, India. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa & Latin America. 2026;57(5):22283-22292.
5. Murthy KGK, PT. Breeding cotton genotypes for high density planting system: a necessity in the Indian context. The Journal of Research, PJTSAU. 2019;47(1).
6. Ramanjaneyulu AV, Sainath N, Ramprasad B, Chary DS, Gouthami R. Performance of cotton cultivars under high density planting system. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2022;7(6):164-166.
7. Sam K, Kumaraswamy D, Kumari RV, Supriya K. Economic analysis of high-density planting system (HDPS) cotton in Telangana. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(12):7-19.
8. Thakare UG, Pachre AM, Deshmukh KM. Revolutionizing cotton cultivation: impact of high density planting system (HDPS) on yield. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2026;32(6):1-11.
9. Vinay G, Vani KP, Padmaja B, Jayasree G, Triveni S, Yakadri M. Productivity and profitability of HDPS cotton influenced by genotypes and INM practices. The Journal of Research, PJTSAU. 2023;50(4).