Currently this priority is driven by economic factors more than any other factor. Although high cash crops means high economic return, it has a disadvantage of short shelf life compared to strategic crops. But even so, growers keep growing high cash crops as long as they can find a marketing window for it. It also depends on the region and the prevailing conditions (environmentally and politically) that will determine this priority. Usually countries are not forcing farmer to grow certain crops but it can encourage them to grow specific ones by providing some incentives for producing such crops.

There is no doubt that cash crop will give you more profit but it should be remember that also field crop in essential for consumption. So just dependency on import will not be wise decision indeed. Both the crop should give priority.

There is no one answer for your valuable question, because strategic crops in a certain country not necessarily the same in a other country. In many developing countries , wheat, rice, sugar beet and maize are considered strategic crops and the government give subsidies for these crops. Usually, Cash crops are given more attention in industrialized countries.

Hi,

as suggested by dr. Yahya Shakhatreh there is no straight answer to your question. I think there are too many factors involved just talking about the type of crops, soil, water availability, market possibility. Strategic crops are generally cheaper but the revenue are lower. Some require no/low water supply and can be very valuable for the country itself. Cash crops are instead highly expensive from water and light perspective, but have a high marketability and are more required. Depending on the economic capability of a company the choice to invest into a cash crop or a strategic crop shall be made with deep understanding of the country situation and knowing the requests of the market. If instead the discussion is more about pure research, like writing a project based on cash crops or strategic crops, there is another point. Due to the high market demand of strategic crops, those are the most studied. This doesn't mean that there is no space in research for abiotic/biotic stress but there is more competition. On the contrary, many field crops are still unknown on the genetic profile, due to the difficulty to unwrap it (poliploidism is just an example) and the low technical demands of those plants. Finally the answer is not simple and shall be taken in account from both the research and economical imput that is necessary for the project itself.

Best regards

Thanks for all of you for sharing your point of view.

A.M.R. Abdel-Mawgoud

From farmers and economic point of view HVC are more profitable if all the essential facilities like irrigation, proper marketing and storage are available. These crops fetch more price in market than agronomic crop. It can be crystal clear to you from the statistics which is given below:

In India, The staple crops (Pulses, Oilseeds and Cereals) occupy 77% of the gross cropped area but contributed only 41% of total output of the crop sector. Interestingly almost same value of output was contributed by HVC (Fruits, Vegetables, Spices & Condiments, Flowers) which just occupy 19% of gross cropped area during 2013-14. Average productivity of HVC after adjusting for cropping intensity variation was estimated as Rs- 1,41,777.00/ ha as compared to Rs- 41,169.00/ ha for staple crops. With this differential in productivity, shifting 1ha area from staple crops to commercial HVC has the potential to increase gross return up to Rs- 1, 01,608.00 (Source: Chatterjee and Mukherjee, 2019).

Now you decide, if you have all facilities available, which type of crop you will go for cultivation.

��JH�U�>E+�j

Subhrajyoti Chatterjee , I agree with you and with other colleagues about the economic value of HVC and it is more productive than field crops. But my point is most of field crops are the ones that constitute food security and form a tool for some countries to control some others. this shift our discussion from the point of economic to the point of national security of a country. Yes, the productivity of HVC is many folds of field crops but the shelf life of most of HVC (if not all) is too small. You may be able to sell it for high price, but that price probably will not enable you to buy another field crop (wheat for example) if you have a problem (political or economic or...) with the main producers. in that case field crops will be more valuable and more important than HVC.

A.M.R. Abdel-Mawgoud , I agree with you sir. That is why, I mentioned in my answer that, if all the facilities available with you especially good storage system and others you may go for HVC s which are more remunerative than field crops. "Agrarian Distress" is the matter of grave concern now a days. To make agriculture a profitable venture, proper planning and strategy is very necessary. Crop selection should be done according to the situation and facilities. If agriculture can be practiced with proper planning then both agronomic and horticultural can be profitable. May be little more or high.

Following

It is different in Iraq, as most of the strategic crops such as wheat and barley, the largest proportion of which is planted in areas that are irrigated depending on rain water only, while high cash crops are grown in areas irrigated with river water and other irrigation sources. So that in irrigated areas the priority are given to high cash crops ,whereas strategic crops grown in areas that not suitable for high cash crops cultivation.