Kashmir’s Apple Growers Deserve Quality Pesticides, Not Another Season of Uncertainty

By Desk Editor Published on Nov 1, 2026

Dr Rizwan Rumi

Protecting an apple orchard begins long before the fruit reaches the market. It begins with protecting the farmer’s investment, ensuring the quality of agricultural inputs and establishing a system in which accountability is as important as production.

For thousands of families in Kashmir, apple cultivation is not simply an agricultural activity; it is the foundation of their livelihood, a source of employment and an investment that sustains generations. Behind every apple harvested from an orchard lies months of hard work, financial expenditure, careful planning and considerable uncertainty. Yet, despite the dedication of orchardists and their efforts to protect their crops, many continue to face a recurring concern: the availability and quality of pesticides and fungicides in the market.

An orchardist begins preparing for the agricultural season with considerable expectations. From pruning trees and maintaining orchards to applying fertilisers, managing irrigation and following recommended spray schedules, every stage requires attention and investment. Farmers spend a substantial amount on pesticides and fungicides, often purchasing products on the advice of dealers or agricultural experts. Their expectation is straightforward: the chemicals they purchase should be genuine, effective and capable of providing the protection for which they are intended.

However, concerns about substandard, misbranded and ineffective agricultural chemicals have continued to surface in Kashmir. For an orchardist, the consequences can be serious. Even after following the prescribed schedule and spending considerable money on crop protection, diseases such as apple scab, Alternaria and other fungal infections may continue to affect trees and fruit. The result is not merely a disappointing harvest; it can mean a substantial financial setback for an entire family.

The issue deserves attention because it is not entirely without precedent. In February 2025, reports emerged that the Agriculture Department’s quality control laboratory had declared two commonly used pesticide products misbranded following laboratory testing. Authorities ordered their seizure from the market. Such developments raise an important question about the effectiveness of quality-control mechanisms and the extent to which farmers can trust the agricultural products available to them.

More recently, official data reported in March 2026 indicated that 190 pesticide samples had been found misbranded or non-standard out of 10,222 samples analysed over two years, with 149 prosecutions initiated in Jammu and Kashmir. These figures underline the importance of sustained inspections and stronger enforcement. They also demonstrate why quality assurance cannot be treated as a routine administrative exercise.

The problem, however, needs to be understood from all angles. Not every disease outbreak in an orchard is necessarily the result of substandard pesticides. Weather fluctuations, prolonged rainfall, humidity, incorrect application, inappropriate spray schedules, chemical resistance and inadequate disease identification can also affect the effectiveness of crop protection measures. Therefore, scientific assessment is essential before attributing a particular crop loss to the quality of a chemical product.

Nevertheless, these factors should not diminish the responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and sellers to ensure that farmers receive genuine and standard products. An orchardist who pays the full market price for a pesticide has every right to expect that the product contains the declared active ingredient, meets prescribed quality standards and has been stored and handled properly.

Another concern is the dependence of many farmers on pesticide dealers for technical advice. While several dealers provide useful guidance, the diagnosis of plant diseases and selection of appropriate chemicals should ideally be supported by qualified horticulture experts. A product suitable for one disease or stage of crop development may not be appropriate for another. Farmers need accessible scientific guidance rather than having to make decisions through trial and error.

The government and concerned departments must therefore strengthen the monitoring of the entire pesticide supply chain. Regular inspections should extend beyond retail outlets to wholesalers, distributors and supply points. Random sampling should be conducted throughout the agricultural season, and laboratory results should be made publicly accessible. Where products are found to be misbranded or substandard, action should not remain limited to the seizure of a particular batch. The source of supply, distribution network and accountability of the concerned parties must also be examined.

There is also a need to establish an effective complaint and response mechanism. If an orchardist suspects that a pesticide has failed to perform or has caused damage to trees and fruit, there should be a simple procedure for reporting the matter. Samples should be collected promptly, orchards inspected by qualified experts and laboratory findings communicated to the affected farmers without unnecessary delay. Such a mechanism would help distinguish between chemical-quality issues, incorrect application and disease-related factors.

Agricultural universities, particularly SKUAST-Kashmir, along with the Horticulture and Agriculture Departments, have an important role in this regard. Scientific advisories must reach orchardists in accessible language and at the appropriate time. Regular awareness programmes, village-level demonstrations and direct interaction with farmers can help improve disease identification, pesticide selection and responsible application.

Equally important is the need to encourage farmers to purchase pesticides from authorised dealers, insist on proper bills, check manufacturing and expiry dates and follow scientifically recommended doses. Farmers should also be encouraged to retain product packaging and batch details whenever they suspect a quality-related problem.

Kashmir’s apple economy cannot afford to leave orchardists struggling with uncertainty every agricultural season. The sector has considerable potential, but its sustainability depends on more than favourable weather and productive trees. It requires reliable agricultural inputs, scientific support, effective regulation and confidence in the market.

An orchardist invests not only money but also an entire year of labour, patience and hope in the expectation of a healthy crop. When diseases continue to damage apples despite substantial expenditure on their protection, the concerns of farmers deserve to be heard and investigated.

The objective should not be to discourage the use of pesticides or question every product available in the market. Rather, it should be to ensure that every chemical sold to a farmer meets the required standards and delivers what its label promises.

Ultimately, protecting an apple orchard begins long before the fruit reaches the market. It begins with protecting the farmer’s investment, ensuring the quality of agricultural inputs and establishing a system in which accountability is as important as production.

Kashmir’s orchardists deserve more than assurances. They deserve genuine products, scientific guidance and a dependable system that protects the fruits of their year-long labour.

Author can be mailed at rizwanroomi2012@gmail.com