Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-prone Gujarat, India

8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr

1/68

ISSN 0256-8748Social SciencesWorking PaperNo. 2010 - 2

W o r k i n g

P a p e r

2 0 1 0

- 2

Assessing potato farmersperceptions on abiotic stresses andimplications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India

Rajesh K Rana, Neeraj Sharma,MS Kadian, Girish BH, S Arya, D Campilan,SK Pandey, NH Patel, C. Carli, R. Schafleitner, M. Bonierbale, BP Singh, G. Thiele


2/68

ii


3/68

W o r k i n g P a p e r

Assessing potato farmersperceptions on abiotic stresses and

implications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India

Rajesh K Rana, BP Singh, SK PandeyCentral Potato Research Institute (C PRI),

Shimla-171001 HP, IndiaNeeraj Sharma, MS Kadian, Girish BH, S Arya, D Campilan

International Potato Center (CIP),Regional Office for SWCA, New Delhi, India

NH PatelPotato Research Station, Banaskantha, Gujarat, India

C. CarliInternational Potato Center (CIP)

Liaison Office for CGIAR-CAC, Tashkent, UzbekistanR. Schafleitner, M. Bonierbale, G. Thiele

International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru


4/68


5/68

iii

Table of ContentsAcronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. viAbstract .................................................................................................................................................... viiAcknowledments ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ....... viiExecutive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives of the survey ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............ .............. ............ ............. .......... 5 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Objectives of the survey........................................................................................................................................ 8 3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 4. Results and Discussion... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ...... 11

4.1. Diagnosis of farmers perception on variety development... ............ ............. ............ ............. .... 11 4.1.1. Responses on yield enhancing attributes ........... ............. ............. ............ ............. ...... 11 4.1.2. Desirable and undesirable varietal characters.............. ............. ............. ............ ........ 12 4.1.3. Reasons for abandoning varieties........... ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ........ 13 4.1.4. Responses on heat and drought stress ............ ............. ............. ............ ............. .......... 14 4.1.5. Priorities for breeding future varieties ........... ............. ............ ............. ............. ............ 15 4.1.6. Early maturing potato varieties ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .......... 16 4.1.7. Processing varieties .............................................................................................................17

4.2. Baseline indicators for future impact assessment ........... ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. 17 4.2.1. Educational qualification ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ........ 17 4.2.2. Primary occupation............ ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ........ 18 4.2.3. Gender ratio of head of households ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .18 4.2.4. Labour participation...... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ........... 19 4.2.5. Net annual family income......... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ........... 19 4.2.7. Proportion of potato income............ ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ... 21 4.2.8. Dairy animals......... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. .......... 21 4.2.9. Household assets... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ........ 22 4.2.10. House condition............. ............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. .. 22 4.2.11. Nutritional security ..............................................................................................................23 4.2.12. Water and electricity connections ............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ...... 23 4.2.13. Toilets .......................................................................................................................................23 4.2.14. Social participation ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ........ 24 4.2.15. Migration.................................................................................................................................24 4.2.16. Other indicators ....................................................................................................................24 4.2.17. Expenditure pattern ............................................................................................................25


6/68

iv

4.2.18. Food expenditure to net income ratio...... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ... 25 4.2.19. Farm assets............................................................................................................................. 4.2.20. Land use pattern............ ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. . 26 4.2.21. Soil health awareness ......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.22. Irrigation status........... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ... 2 4.2.23. Adoption rate ........................................................................................................................2 4.2.24. Variety wise potato yield ...................................................................................................30 4.2.25. Seed replacement rate ....................................................................................................... 30 4.2.26. Seed source............................................................................................................................ 3 4.2.27. Seed rate............... ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. . 4.2.28. Seed size................................................................................................................................. 4.2.29. Cut/whole seed use.............................................................................................................32 4.2.30. Retention of own seed............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ . 33 4.2.31. Price satisfaction... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .......... 3 4.2.32. Post Harvest Losses............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ....... 34 4.2.33. Level of mechanisation ...................................................................................................... 35 4.2.34. Capacity building .................................................................................................................3

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ Recommendations ........... ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ......... References ................................................................................................................................................ Annexes ................................................................................................................................................

List of Tables Table 1. Sampling details (No. of respondents)........ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. . 10 Table 2. Farmers perception on potato yield enhancing attributes................ ............. ............. ...... 12 Table 3. Responses on desirable and undesirable qualities of different varieties (%)................ 13 Table 4. Reasons for varietal abandonment (multiple responses)..... ............. ............. ............. ........ 14 Table 5. Relative importance of abiotic stresses (% of responses)... .............. ............. ............. ......... 15 Table 6. Average inventory of lactating animals........ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ 22 Table 7. Average inventory of farm assets (Number per farm). ............ ............. ............. ............. ...... 26 Table 8. Land use pattern of sampled households (Land in ha). ............. ............. .............. ............. .. 27 Table 9. Average area under different crops (ha). ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .............. ..... 27 Table 10. Soil health awareness indicators......... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............ 28 Table 11. Irrigation status and quality of irrigation water. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ... 29 Table 12. Area under different potato varieties (Ha per farm)..... ............. ............. ............. ............. ..... 29 Table 13. Variety wise potato yield during 2007-08(tonne/ha)............ ............. ............ ............. .......... 30 Table 14. Seed replacement rate of different potato varieties (gap in years) .............. .............. .... 30 Table 15. Source of seed-potato used at respondents farms (%) ............ ............ ............. ............ ...... 31 Table 16. Variety wise seed rate(tonne/ha)... ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. ............ .............. ..... 31 Table 17. Size of seed-potato used by respondents (% of responses)............ ............. ............. ......... 32 Table 18. Category-wise cut/whole seed-potato utilization pattern (% of responses) .............. .. 33 Table 19. Method of producing own seed (% of responses) ............ ............. .............. ............. ............. 33 Table 20. Price satisfaction level of potato farmers (% of responses)............. ............. ............. ......... 34 Table 21. Assessment of post harvest losses (Multiple responses) ............. ............. ............. ............. . 35 Table 22. Level of mechanization (% of responses)........ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ......... 36 Table 23. Extent of participation in training activities (% of responses) ............ .............. ............. .... 36

List of FiguresFigure 1a. Leading potato growing countries (area)............ ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .........6Figure 1b. Leading potato growing countries (production) ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ......6Figure 2. Map of the study area............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ......9Figure 3. Priority index (0-100) of various varietal attributes ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ 16


7/68

v

Figure 4. Percent relative importance of top preferred five attributes. .............. ............. ............. .... 16Figure 5. Education index (1-5) of head of the family ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ 18Figure 6. Labour participation across farm categories (5%)............. ............. ............. .............. ............. 19Figure 7. Annual Potato Income (US$) ............ ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .... 20Figure 8. Net annual family income of respondents (US$).............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .. 20Figure 9. Per capita annual income (US$)............... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ........ 21Figure 10. Percent contribution of potato............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ 21Figure 11. House condition index (1-5) ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. .... 22Figure 12. Nutritional security across farm categories (%)............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ....... 23Figure 13. Social participation level (%). ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ .. 24Figure 14. Monthly food and total expenditure (US$).............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 25Figure 15. Ratio of food expenditure and net income (Engels curve)............ .............. ............. .......... 25


8/68

vi

Acronyms and abbreviationsACGR = Annual compound growth rate

CPRI = Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla (India)

CIP = International Potato Centre

DES = Directorate of Economic and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI

DTH TV = Direct to home television

FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

GOI = Government of India

GTZ = Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (A German co-operation enterprise forsustainable development with worldwide operations and major emphasis on sustainably

improving peoples living conditions under difficult circumstances)

ICAR = Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New

Delhi

INR = Indian national rupee(s)

MT = Metric tonne

PHL = Post harvest losses

PRS = Potato Research Station, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat (India)

PTM = Potato tuber moth

q = Quintal (0.1 tonne)

SWCA = South-West and Central Asia

TE = Triennium ending (year)


9/68

vii

Acknowledgements This study is an outcome of collaborative work of CIP and CPRI (ICAR). Authors thank Dr. RC

Maheswari, Vice Chancellor and Dr. SBS Tikka, Director of Research, Sardarkrushinagar

Agricultural University Dantiwada, Gujarat, for providing help in selecting sites. We are grateful to

Dr. HN Verma, retired scientist PRS Dessa, Gujarat, for his constant support during field survey. We

are extremely thankful to Mr. Kalidas B Chaudhari, Mr. Shiva K Chaudhari, Mr. Vinod Patel, Mr.

Mahesh L Chaudhari and many other progressive farmers of Gandhinagar district for their field

support and co-operation. We are especially thankful to the GTZ for financially supporting thisstudy. Sincere thanks are due to Dr. Jai Gopal, Principal Scientist and Head, Division of Crop

Improvement, CPRI-Shimla for suggesting valuable improvements in the manuscript.

Comprehensive peer review by Drs. Victor Mares, Guy G. Hareau and Thomas Miethbauer, CIP-

Lima helped authors to remove several deficiencies in the report.


10/68

viii


11/68

A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S1

Assessing potato farmers perceptions on abioticstresses and implications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IntroductionIndia is the fourth largest country in terms of potato area and the third largest in terms of potato

production. Potato has a significant contribution to the socio-economic condition of Indian

people.

Gujarat has shown the fastest annual compound growth rate (ACGR) in terms of potato area,

production and productivity among Indian states. ACGR of area and production from 1998-99 to

2006-07 were 4.5 and 7.9% for Gujarat against 1.31 and (-) 0.5% for all India. The latest official

potato production data elevates Gujarat to third largest potato producing state from the fourth

one (Kesari and Rana, 2008). Gujarat also has the highest potato productivity among Indian states

from 2004-05 to 2007-08 (DES, 2010).

Temperature was estimated to rise approximately by 1, 3 and 5 0C during main Indian potato

growing winter season by year 2020, 2050 and 2080, respectively (Lal et al ., 2008). Potato

production is estimated to fall through 2020 and 2050, respectively, by 19.65% and 44.90% in

Karnataka; 18.23% and 31.77% in Gujarat; 13.02% and 24.59% in Maharashtra; and 9.65% and

16.62% in Madhya Pradesh (Singh et al ., 2008). An urgent need of developing heat and drought

tolerant potato varieties was felt and a CIP and CPRI (ICAR) collaborative project funded by GTZ

Enhanced Food and Income Security in SWCA through Potato Varieties with Improved Tolerance

to Abiotic Stress was initiated.

Objectives of the Survey:

In order to mitigate the risk of non-adoption of potato varieties by farmers once they aredeveloped it was decided to carry out a diagnostic cum baseline survey in proposed project

areas. Answers to the following questions were elicited in this survey.

1. What actions farmers think, can further increase potato yield and income on theirfarms?

2. What is the farmers perception on desirable and undesirable characters of existingpotato varieties?

3. Why farmers abandoned some potato varieties in the past?4. To what extent potato growers consider abiotic stresses a limiting factor?5. What priorities farmers regard as desirable characters in the future potato varieties?


12/68

C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2

2 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S

6. How to compare production systems and livelihood status of potato and non-potato

farmers?7. How to identify and fix baseline indicators and standpoints for future impactassessment of the project activities.

Methodology The study is mainly based on primary data collected during February 2009 from three sampled

villages in Gandhinagar district of Gujarat. Respondents were selected from all economic

backgrounds viz. non-cultivators, non-potato growers (farmers who have not grown potato

continuously for the last two years i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09) and various categories of potato

growers (marginal, small, medium and large). Detailed information about the village was

obtained from Panchayat office (Village council). Interview schedule was specially designed to

meet the requirements of the survey. Simple statistical procedures and methods were employedto derive meaningful conclusions out of the collected data. Chi-square test was employed to test

independence among potato farmers categories on various factors/ attributes.

Farmers perception on varietal characters : All the respondents across all farmers categories

believe that yields of potato crop on their farms can further increase. Very high proportion of

farmers (98.5%) believes that high yielding new potato varieties can further increase their potato

yield. Other closely perceived factor by the farmers was heat tolerant potato varieties (95.5%)

followed by proper late blight control (81.5%), water saving technologies (74.5%) and drought

tolerant varieties (69%). Higher yield, early maturity, desirable (big and uniform) tuber size, good

storability, higher price of the output and suitability for processing were important desirable

characters the farmers were looking for. Low yield, susceptibility to heat and late blight, late

maturity, bad storability and low price of the output were important undesirable characters in

farmers mind.

Priorities for breeding future varieties : The responding farmers revealed heat tolerance in

potato varieties as their first priority (index = 92 and relative importance = 22.43%) in future

potato varieties. High yield was the second most important attribute. Resistance to late blight

and potato tuber moth were respectively the third and fourth most important attributes on

farmers preference list. Early maturity and suitability of processing are two very importantattributes, which may be given higher importance than elicited by respondents.

Baseline indicators for future impact assessment : The following baseline standpoints/

indicators were analyzed and discussed for future impact assessment of project activities in the

study area.


13/68


A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 3

1. Educational qualification : Level of education of average household head in non-potato

growers was slightly (3% lower) lower than the potato growing farmers. However this

gap was much wider (46% lower) in case of non-farmers.

2. Primary Occupation : Proportion of potato growers having farming as their primary

occupation was slightly higher (at 88%) than the non-potato growers (at 83%). But, more

or less equal proportion of non-farmers was finding primary occupation in labour.

3. Gender ratio of head of households : All heads of surveyed farming households were

males. However, 5% of heads of non-cultivator households were females.

4. Labour participation : Labour participation of non-potato growers was marginally

higher than that of potato growers. Overall 35% of heads of households in the area work

personally on their farms.

5. Net annual family income Net annual family income : Net family income in US$ was

5348 for potato growers, 2095 for non-potato growers and just 885 for non-farmers.

Average annual net family income of potato growers was 2.55 times higher than the

non-potato growers. Average annual potato income showed tremendous increase with

the increase in potato holding (marginal = UD$ 338 to large potato farmers = US$ 6682).

Gap in annual net family income between farmers and non-farmers was again very wide.

6. Per capita income : Even the marginal potato farmers (most disadvantaged among

potato farmers) were having per capita income (US$ 616) higher than the non-potato

growers (US$ 328). However, non-farmers were the poorest category of respondents inthe study area with annual per capita income just US$ 186.

7. Proportion of potato income : Proportion of potato income in the overall agricultural

income of potato farmers was nearly 36%. Potato contributed nearly 28% of the net

family income (from all sources).

8. Dairy animals : Number of dairy animals were more or less same among all potato

growers categories (7.43 all potato farmers). However, non-potato growers (3.00) and

non-cultivators (2.45) had much less number of milch animals as compared to the potato

farmers.

9. House condition : The house condition (range 1 to 5) of even the marginal potato

farmers (score = 4.06) was very near to the highest category (INR 0.5 million house =

score 5) considered during the survey. However, house condition of non-potato growers

(score = 2.67) was much below as compared to the potato growers. The house condition

of non-farmers (score = 1.80) was even worse vis--vis the non-potato growers.


14/68



10. Nutritional security : Highest proportion of non-farmers (35%) in the study area was

nutritionally insecure followed by about 18% marginal potato growers and non-potato

farmers (each category).

11. Toilets : Nearly one third of the respondents among non-potato growers and three

fourth among non-farmers were going to open fields/ places for answering to the

natural call.

12. Social participation : In this regard tremendous difference was observed between

potato farmers and non-potato farmers indicating that potato farmers in the study are

socially more united and active. The social participation level of non-potato growers

(17%) and non-farmers (5%) was very low.

13. Migration : About 10% of the non-farmer respondent families reported migration fromother areas.

14. Expenditure pattern : On an average monthly total and food expenditure was US$ 150

and 85, respectively. The total monthly expenditure across various categories was US$

180 for potato growers, 118 for non-potato growers and 71 for non-farmers.

15. Food expenditure to net income ratio (Engels curve) : Among respondent categories

potato farmers were having lowest (12%) and non-farmers the highest (54%) food

expenditure to total family income ratio.

16. Land use pattern : On an average potato farmers were using 63% of cultivated land for

potato (range 50% for marginal to 77% for large potato growers).

17. Adoption rate : Kufri Badshah (1.284 ha per farm) was the leading potato variety in the

area followed by K. Pukhraj (0.684 ha per farm) and K. Luavkar (0.044 ha per farm) during

2008-09.

18. Variety wise potato yield : Overall the potato yield on sampled farms was 28 tonnes per

hectare against the state average of 26.7 tonnes during the triennium ending 2007-

08(Annex6 ).

19. Seed replacement rate : Seed replacement rate was same (after a gap of 1.08 years) for

K. Badshah and K. Pukhraj varieties. However, this rate was slow (after the gap of 1.5

years) in case of K. Lauvkar.

20. Seed rate : Overall 2.52 and 2.62 tonnes seed potato was used per ha during 2007-08 and2008-09. Seed rate across varieties and farmer categories didnt show wide fluctuation.

21. Retention of own seed : Only 21% respondents retained some seed potato from own

source.


15/68



RecommendationsAlong with heat and drought tolerance the breeding team of the project should also payattention to early maturity and resistance to late blight/potato-tuber-moth in new potato

varieties. Better storability and processing attributes, if possible to incorporate in new potato

varieties, would provide additional utility to the targeted adopters of such varieties. Development

of cooperative tube-wells and facilitation of better agricultural extension services specially

targeted at the resource poor small and marginal potato farmers are sure to bring favourable

socio-economic impact in the study area.


16/68



Assessing potato farmers perceptions on abioticstresses and implications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India

1. INTRODUCTION

Potato is the worlds fourth most important food crop after rice, wheat and maize. In India potato

is largely consumed as vegetable. India is an important potato producing country in the world,

ranking fourth in area (after China, Russia and Ukraine) and third ranking in production (after

China and Russia) ( Figures 1a and 1b ). India has higher average potato productivity than China,Russia and Ukraine.

Food security issues in Indian context have been thoroughly addressed at several fora (Acharya,

2009 and Chand, et al., 2007; to mention a few). Contribution of potato to the socio-economic

Figure 1a.Leading potato growing

countries (area)

Figure 1b.Leading potato

growing countries(production)


17/68



condition of Indian people i.e. food security, employment generation and livelihood security has

been highlighted by Shekhawat and Naik, 1999.

Gujarat has emerged as the fastest growing potato state in India during recent years. During the

triennium ending 2000-01 and 2006-07, the area and production in Gujarat grew by 33% and

65.7% compared to all India growth of 8.5 and (-) 1.2%, respectively (Kesari and Rana, 2008). Over

the same period the share of Gujarat in national potato production rose from 3.01 to 5.04%. The

annual compound growth rates of area and production over a period of 1998-99 to 2006-07 were

computed equal to 4.5 and 7.9% for Gujarat against 1.31 and (-)0.5% for all India. The latest official

potato production data shows that Gujarat (1.210 million MT in 2006-07 and 1.796 million MT in

2007-08) has replaced Punjab (1.223 million MT in 2006-07 and 1.477 million MT in 2007-08) as

the third largest potato producing state in India after Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal (Annex 6).

Gujarat also has attained the highest potato productivity in all Indian states during 2004-05 to

2007-08.

Global warming has been perceived as one of the biggest threats to Indian agriculture in general

and potato in particular (Lal et al ., 2008). Temperature was estimated to rise approximately by 1, 3

and 5 0C during main Indian potato growing winter season in year 2020, 2050 and 2080,

respectively. Potato production at national level was estimated to decline by 9.56 and 16.06% in

year 2020 and 2050, respectively, vis--vis the current production (Singh, et al ., 2008). However,the estimated respective reduction in potato production over 2020 and 2050 would be much

higher in states like Karnataka (19.6%; 44.9%) followed by Gujarat (18.2%; 31.8%); Maharashtra

(13.0%; 24.6%) and Madhya Pradesh (9.6%; 16.6%).

Almost all crops in the tropics and sub-tropics have been adversely affected by global warming

during the current decade. So there is an urgent need to develop varieties which can cope with

the impending rise in temperature. Potato is adversely affected by high temperature during tuber

initiation (Basu and Minhas, 1991) and tuber bulking (Minhas and Devendra, 2005) stages.

Developing heat tolerant potato varieties will not only enhance production but may also extend

its cultivation to non-traditional potato areas. Keeping these points in consideration a project

funded by GTZ Enhanced Food and Income Security in SWCA through Potato Varieties with

Improved Tolerance to Abiotic Stress was initiated in SWCA countries during 2008.


18/68



2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY

A large number of agricultural technologies, including new varieties, are not adopted by the

farmers. Conducting a diagnostic survey to find what technology/ variety farmers need before it

is developed has been widely recommended by social scientists. To understand what attributes

farmers want in new potato varieties in Gandhinagar district of Gujarat was an important

component of this study. To study and fix baseline indicators for future impact assessment of this

crop improvement research project was another objective. This study tried to answer the

following questions.

1. What actions, according to farmers, can further increase potato yield and income on

their farms?2. What is farmers perception on desirable and undesirable characters of existing potato

varieties grown by them?

3. Why farmers abandoned some potato varieties in the past?

4. To what extent potato growers consider abiotic stresses a limiting factor?

5. What priorities farmers elicit as desirable characters in the future potato varieties?

6. How to compare production systems and livelihood status of potato and non-potato

farmers?

7. How to identify and fix baseline indicators and standpoints for future impact assessment

of the project activities.

3. METHODOLOGY

Gandhinagar being one of the hottest potato growing districts of Gujarat was selected for this

study ( Figure 2 ). Three villages of Gandhingar viz., Premnagar, Indirapura and Nandol were

selected for the study on the basis of a pilot survey 1. These villages were representative potato

growing areas of the region. The final survey was conducted between February 10 and 18, 2009.

1 Pilot survey was conducted by Dr. MS Kadian, CIP-SWCA, New Delhi; Dr SK Pandey, Director CPRI, Shimla; and Dr NHPatel, In-charge Potato Research Station, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat.


19/68



Figure 2. Map of the study area


20/68



The respondents were selected from different rural backgrounds viz., non-farmers, non-potato

growers (farmers who have not grown potato continuously for last two years i.e. 2007-08 and2008-09) and various categories of potato growers i.e. marginal (potato area


21/68



E E O

22 )(

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section is discussed in two broad headings: diagnosis of farmers perception on variety

development; and baseline indicators for future impact assessment.

4.1. Diagnosis of farmers perception on variety development4.1.1. Responses on yield enhancing attributes

Farmers opinions on whether potato yield on their farms can increase were analysed. Seventeen

factors, covering crop management and the enabling environment, which can contributetowards increasing the yield along with factors respective importance in farmers mind were also

collected and analysed. These factors were selected based on the past survey experiences of

team members in same or similar conditions. All the respondents across all farmers categories

believe that yields of potato crop on their farms can further increase. Very high proportion of

farmers (98.5%) believes that high yielding new potato varieties can further increase their potato

yield (Table 2 ). Other closely perceived factor 2 by the farmers was heat tolerant potato varieties

(95.5%) followed by proper late blight control (81.5%), water saving technologies (74.5%) and

drought tolerant varieties (69%). Importance index of these factors, ranging from 1 (low) to 5

(high) was the highest for heat tolerant varieties (3.87) followed by high yielding new potato

varieties (3.45), better agricultural extension services (3.24), proper late blight control (3.13) and

water saving technologies 3.

Chi-square test indicated that farmers of different categories provided statistically different

weights for role of soil reclamation, fertilizer doses, low prices of inputs and better agricultural

extension services in increasing their potato yield at 1% level of significance. Marginal farmers put

2 Farmers elicited scores on importance of every attribute (ranging from 1 to 5) were taken. The average of all responseson a particular attribute is referred to the importance index. No responses were not considered.3 Drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation were the two important water saving technologies available with the farmers of study area. Reportedly drip irrigation saves up to 70% water and sprinkler irrigation saves up to 50% water as compared tothe conventional furrow application. Sprinkler irrigation was found to initiate and aggravate late blight infection in potatocrop. Hence, drip irrigation was the best water saving technology available with the studied farmers. In addition to watersaving this irrigation technology was responsible for checking late blight infection and better efficiency of nutrientsthrough fertigation. Gujarat government is providing 50% subsidy (with the cap of INR 50000 per ha) on water savingtechnologies. During previous few years farmers have adopted these water saving technologies very fast making themquite popular in the state.


22/68



higher stress on having drought tolerant potato varieties and need of better agricultural

extension services. It was observed that marginal farmers didnt have assured source of irrigationand progressive farmers (who are generally targeted by extension agencies) were not passing on

technical information to the marginal farmers.

Table 2. Farmers perception on potato yield enhancing attributes

Potato growersResponses

Marginal Small Medium Large All% MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In

Yield can furtherincrease.

100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a

Sufficient irrigationwater

50.00 2.31 62.50 2.92 68.75 2.92 62.50 2.33 60.61 2.62

Soil reclamation*** 27.78 1.75 6.67 1.00 40.00 1.67 21.43 1.83 24.19 1.65High Yielding Potatovarieties

100.00 3.12 100.00 3.75 93.75 3.56 100.00 3.38 98.51 3.45

Water savingtechnology

83.33 2.67 76.47 2.92 62.50 2.79 75.00 3.00 74.63 2.84

Drought resistantvarieties**

81.25 2.69 58.82 2.69 56.25 2.69 81.25 3.13 69.23 2.81

Heat tolerant varieties 94.44 3.53 100.00 3.81 93.75 4.00 93.33 4.13 95.45 3.87

High dose of fertilizer***

44.44 2.42 40.00 2.67 66.67 3.09 26.67 1.67 44.44 2.55

Proper weed control* 29.41 1.78 53.33 2.60 46.67 2.56 40.00 1.56 49.53 2.14

Insect pest control** 47.06 1.85 68.75 2.31 80.00 2.75 68.75 2.46 67.19 2.33

Proper Late Blightmanagement

88.89 2.94 75.00 3.33 68.75 2.79 93.33 3.54 81.54 3.13

Management of otherdiseases*

43.75 1.75 53.33 2.00 43.67 1.50 66.67 2.00 52.46 1.83

Adequate availabilityof pesticides

50.00 2.08 43.75 2.56 56.25 2.18 37.50 2.33 46.97 2.27

Adequate availabilityof fertilizers

50.00 2.45 53.33 2.11 53.33 2.00 43.75 2.36 50.00 2.25

Adequate availabilityof funds

55.56 3.18 60.00 2.89 75.00 2.78 56.35 2.40 61.54 2.82

Availability of cheapermachinery*

47.06 2.88 53.33 2.38 66.67 3.11 42.86 2.43 52.46 2.72

Low input prices*** 72.22 2.92 66.67 2.70 80.00 2.90 40.00 2.22 65.08 2.71Better Agril ExtensionServices***

94.12 3.31 23.53 2.91 31.25 3.45 85.71 3.25 57.81 3.24

% MR = Percent multiple responses; Im In = Farmers perceived Importance index (range 1 to 5); Chi-square test indicated statisticallydifferent response levels among farm categories at * = 10%; ** = 5%; and *** = 1% level of significance. Chi square test was applied onactual number of multiple responses and is applicable for %MR.

4.1.2. Desirable and undesirable varietal characters

Desirable and undesirable characters of existing potato varieties were described by the

participants. For this part of the study respondents were asked open-ended questions. They were

asked to name three most important good and bad characters of existing potato varieties. High

yield, early maturity, desirable (big and uniform) tuber size, good storability, higher price of the

output and suitability for processing were important desirable characters the farmers were

looking for ( Table 3 ). Low yield, susceptibility to heat and late blight, late maturity, bad storability

and low price of the output were important undesirable characters in farmers mind. Bad


23/68



storability in the preceding sentence refers to higher storage losses (at ambient temperature as

well as during cold storage) of potato varieties.

Table 3. Responses on desirable and undesirable qualities of different varieties (%).

Particulars Variety

K. Badshah K. Pukhraj K. Lauvkar

Good qualities

Yield 47.5 72.7

Early maturing -- 63.6 50.0

Desirable tuber size 32.8 -- --

Good storability 52.5 -- 75.0High price 47.5 -- 50.0

Good for processing -- -- 50.0

Bad qualities

Low yield -- -- 50.0

Susceptible to heat 43.2 23.1

Late blight susceptible -- 23.1 25.0

Late maturing 24.3 -- --

Bad storability -- 46.2 --

Low price -- 30.8 --

K. = Kufri (All potato varieties released by CPRI, Shimla are named in two words and the first one is Kufri as Kufriwas the first potato breeding station in India)

4.1.3. Reasons for abandoning varieties

Four varieties were reported abandoned 4 by all (Kufri Chandramukhi) or some of the respondents

(K. Jyoti, K. Luvkar and K. Pukhraj) (Table 4 ). Low yield as a reason for abandoning K.

Chandramukhi and K. Lauvkar was reported by all the concerned respondents. Late blight

susceptibility was another reason for abandoning K. Chandramukhi by two third of the

respondents. Low yield, problem of tuber cracking during bulking stage and longer duration of

maturity were important reasons reported by responding farmers for abandoning K. Jyoti.

Cultivation of K. Pukhraj which is still an important potato variety in the study area was stopped

by some growers. The main reasons for abandoning this variety were low price of the product

followed by its heat susceptibility and poor storability. Tubers of this variety fetch lower prices on

account of early (pre mature) harvesting and lower dry matter.

4 Potato varieties which farmers used to plant more than five years ago but have not planted within five years due to somenegative perception were considered abandoned.


24/68



Table 4. Reasons for varietal abandonment (multiple responses).

Variety/ reason % of responses

Kufri Chandramukhi

Low yield 100.0

Late blight susceptible 66.7

Kufri Jyoti

Long duration 33.3

Cracking 66.7

Low yield 66.7

Kufri Lauvkar

Low yield 100.0

Expensive seed 33.3

Kufri Pukhraj

Low prices 66.7

Heat susceptible 50.0

Poor storability 50.0

Note: Due to less number of responses in respect to various farm categories, the category wise analysis was notcarried out

4.1.4. Responses on heat and drought stress

Heat and drought are very important abiotic stress factors for the potato crop in the study area.

Night temperature should be less than 18 0C for proper tuber initiation and bulking (Basu and

Minhas, 1991). With exposure to higher temperature, potato plants show increased vegetative

growth without converting carbohydrates into tubers (Minhas and Devendra, 2005). Plants

become tall and lanky. Drought on the other hand is responsible for general disturbance in plant

health. Plant becomes weak and more susceptible to other biotic and abiotic stresses.

Respondents were interviewed to express their opinions on drought and heat stresses. Ninety

percent of respondents believed that heat was a limiting factor towards achieving higher yield

levels (Table 5 ). A lower proportion (31.5%) of respondents pointed out drought as abiotic stress

to the potato crop. However, higher proportion of small and marginal farmers regarded drought

as a potential threat to their potato crop. Since ground water level was very deep in the study

area, the cost of digging tube wells was very high. Small and medium farmers on account of paucity of funds along with small and fragmented landholdings were at disadvantage to have

personal source of assured irrigation. They depend increasingly on larger farmers for irrigation

water, which they get at comparatively higher per hour charges. Large farmers may or may not

provide them irrigation water at the right time due to their own needs.


25/68



Table 5. Relative importance of abiotic stresses (% of responses).

Category of potato growersType of stress

Marginal Small Medium Large All

Drought 33.33 47.06 18.75 25.00 31.34

Heat 88.89 82.24 100.00 100.00 94.03

4.1.5. Priorities for breeding future varieties

Finally, the respondent farmers were asked to express their four most important priorities of the

attributes they want in new potato varieties to be developed under the GTZ project. Top ten

attributes were selected as per the indices (ranging from a low of 0 to the high of 100) of

responses ( Annex 1 and 2 ). Production constraints under existing situation had strong influenceon the future potato breeding priorities in the study area.

Relative importance of these attributes (in percentage) was also calculated. Year 2008-09 being

very hot, farmers perceived 5 losses on account of low potato yields. The responding farmers

showed heat tolerance in potato varieties their first priority (index = 92 and relative importance =

22.43%) (Figures 3 and 4 ). High yield was the second most important attribute. High potato yield

scored relatively low on the rating scale of large farmers as they are more concerned with quality

attributes than just the higher yield. Large farmers which are generally the trend setter, had less

focus on higher yield vis-a-vis the other attributes such as resistance to late blight followed by

processing grade varieties, resistance to potato tuber moth and early maturing potato varieties.

Overall, resistance to late blight and potato tuber moth were respectively the third and fourth

most important attributes on farmers preference list. Chi-square statistics showed that

respondents among farm categories had different levels of preferences for high yield, resistance

to late blight and potato-tuber-moth, suitability for processing, early maturity and shining skin at

1% level of significance.

5 The phenomenon of high temperature during 2008-09 potato crop season was wide spread and lower potato yieldswere reported from other parts of Gujarat (entire state -35%), Madhya Pradesh (-30%), Chattisgarh (-25%), West Bengal(-42%) and Bihar (-25%) states (CPRI, 2009). Potato prices rose sharply in beginning of March 2009. Farmers who soldinitially are likely to incur losses. However, those who could hold their produce are likely to get higher net income ascompared to 2007-08 despite of nearly 35% lower average estimated potato yield during this year.


26/68



4.1.6. Early maturing potato varieties

Early maturing potato varieties are very important for farmers in Gujarat state in general andGandhinagar district in particular. This importance stems from the fact that farmers in this state

seriously try to take an additional crop after potato. Besides, they also try to escape heat and

potato tuber moth damage during February and March. However, eighth priority for early

maturing attribute ( Figure 3 ) in future potato varieties, due to relatively lower priority index and

relative importance, was lower than the general expectation of the survey team. It was due to the

Figure 3.Priority index (0-100) of

various varietal attributes

Figure 4.Percent relative

importance of toppreferred five

attributes.


27/68



fact that studied farmers already have very good early maturing and high yielding potato variety

in the form of Kufri Pukhraj. However, the shortcomings of this variety viz., low dry matter, poor

storability and susceptibility to late blight have been reflected in other attributes such as

resistance to late blight, suitability for processing and good storability in addition to the early

maturity. Hence, early maturity as an attribute along with better dry matter, storability and late

blight resistance in the new potato varieties, should be considered at higher priority level than

the one listed in the table. Marginal farmers confer higher than the overall importance to good

storability attribute in new potato varieties 6.

4.1.7. Processing varieties

Responses of farmers may have been guided by their personal needs and experiences

undermining attributes of wider interest. India in general and Gujarat in particular have shown

tremendous growth in potato processing sector (Rana and Pandey, 2007). Raw material

(processing grade tubers) demand of potato processing industry in India was estimated 2.678

million MT during 2010-11 (Rana and Pandey, 2007). This demand constitutes 10.76% of Indian

average potato production during TE 2007-08 (DES, 2010). Although, specific estimates for

Gujarat state are not available yet the study by Rana and Pandey (2007) clearly indicates that the

proportionate demand of processing grade tubers in this state is much higher than the national

one. Varietal attribute suggesting suitability of potato variety for processing has got seventh

highest ranking with a priority index of 29.69 ( Figure 3 ). Breeders should assign higherimportance to this attribute too.

4.2. Baseline indicators for future impact assessmentEducation level of head of the household, occupational pattern, proportion of female heads of

households and labour participation level of average respondent are some of the important

indicators that shall be used as indicators for future comparisons ( Annex 3 ).

4.2.1. Educational qualification

Educational qualification of a person is very important indicator for assessing his/ her

responsiveness to external stimuli in addition to taking right decisions. In case of farmers these

stimuli can be new technologies, new government schemes and new inputs etc. Level of

6 Marginal farmers usually have low volume of produce and are more likely to be exploited in the process of marketing. They have the tendency of avoiding marketing risk and try to sell at the farm itself. However, it is general experience thatpotato prices are low during harvesting season and prices rise after the produce is cold stored. Marginal farmers tend toavoid paying cold storage charges and mostly opt for storing their produce using conventional methods. Hence betterstorability as an attribute in new potato varieties is likely to be more beneficial to the poor potato farmers having smallland holdings.


28/68



education of average household head in non-potato growers was slightly lower than the potato

growing farmers ( Figure 5 ). However this gap was much wider in case of farmers and non-

farmers.

4.2.2. Primary occupation

Primary occupation of a person not only reflects his/ her seriousness and commitment in that

particular occupation but also conveys important indication about his/ her socio-economic

condition7

. Proportion of potato growers having farming as their primary occupation was slightlyhigher than the non-potato growers ( Annex 3 ). But, more or less equal proportion of non-farmers

was finding primary occupation in labour. Since the proportion of non-farmers in the study area

was very high hence about 44% of the household heads were resorting to labour as their primary

occupation. Nearly half of the household head were having farming as their primary occupation

in this area which is primarily agriculture based.

4.2.3. Gender ratio of head of households

Gender ratio of household heads indicates pattern of involvement of a particular sex in

agricultural decision making. Farming is male dominated profession in the study area ( Annex 3 ).

All heads of surveyed farming households were males. Even in case of death or non-availability of

head of household the agriculture related decisions are taken by another male member of the

family. However, 5% of the head of non-farming households were females.

7 Agriculture in the study area is done on small landholdings that generate inadequate returns to lead a muchcomfortable life. People are tempted to supplement family income through jobs, labour work and running pettybusinesses/services. Primary occupation indicates the quantum of time invested in a particular source of earning.

Figure 5. Education index (1-5) of

head of the family.

NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents

Potato growers


29/68



4.2.4. Labour participation

Labour participation shows actual involvement of a person on his/ her own farms. Labour

participation of non-potato growers was marginally higher than that of potato growers

(Figure 6 ). It was due to the reason that potato growers were wealthier and many of them dont

personally work on their farms. Overall 35% of heads of households in the area used to personally

work on their farms.

Very high proportion of the respondents was not having any secondary occupation, hence,

analysis and discussion of secondary occupation may not provide conclusive and meaningful

inferences.

4.2.5. Net annual family income

Family income from all sources (Table 8) confirms that potato growers constitute the richest

section of households in the study area 8. Category wise net family income in US$ has been

depicted in Figure 8 .

Crops and animal husbandry were the two main components of agriculture in the study area.

Within animal husbandry dairy was the sole source of income 9. It is worth mentioning that very

high proportion of Gujaraties (people not only living in Gujarat but also adopting local traditions

and values) is vegetarian. No responding farmer sold animals for meat purpose. Net income from

8 It is the net agricultural income (after subtracting all paid out input costs and interest costs). However;salaries/wages=gross; business=net of expenses and costs were considered. Disposable income term was not used assavings were not subtracted.9 In all cases potato was a cash crop. Due to very high temperatures following crop harvest farmers were not retainingmore than 2 months potato consumption equivalent for home consumption. Home consumption of potato variedbetween nearly 50 kg to 200 kg per year per family. This quantity was valued at market rate. No other significant non-monetary income was perceived in the area.

Figure 6. Labour participation acrosfarm categories (5%)


Potato growers


30/68



crops (including potato) and dairy constituted agricultural income. Salaries or remittances and

other non-farm income were other sources of respondents income. Average annual net family

income of potato growers was 2.55 times higher than the non-potato growers ( Annex 4 ).

Average annual potato income showed tremendous increase with the increase in potato holding

(marginal to large potato farmers) ( Figure 7 ). Gap in annual net family income between farmers

and non-farmers was again very wide.

4.2.6. Per capita income

Per capita income is one of the most reliable indicators of economic well being of a family. The

per capita income across various categories of respondents in US$ ( Figure 9 ) present similar

scenario as depicted by net family income. Even the marginal potato farmers (most

disadvantaged among potato farmers) were having per capita income higher than the non-

potato growers. However, non-farmers were the poorest category of respondents in the study

area.

Figure 7.

Annual Potato Income (US$).

Figure 8.Net annual family income

of respondents (US$)

US$ = 48 INR

US$ = 48 INR


Potato growersNP NC AR


31/68



4.2.7. Proportion of potato income Proportion of potato income in the overall agricultural income of potato farmers was nearly 36%

(Figure 10 ) while it occupies only 25% of the annual cropping time. In the study area farmers

invariably keep their land continuously under cultivation for the entire year. Potato contributed

nearly 28% of the net family income (from all sources). Potato is a capital intensive and high risk

crop ( Annex 4 ). Large farmers are in better position to manage risk and cultivate potato on

higher proportion of their cultivated land. They have better control and more efficient use of

indivisible fixed costs associated with this crop.

4.2.8. Dairy animals

Gujarat is world famous for its dairy cooperatives. All milk produced (irrespective of quantity) ispurchased by these cooperatives at the farm gate. These cooperatives do provide technical and

inputs support to their members. Number of lactating animals on a farm is an important indicator

of financial health of the farm family. Dairy not only provides additional income to the farmers

but also cushions against crop failures. Number of lactating animals on the farms of potato

growers showed less variation across the categories ( Table 6 ). However, non-potato growers and

non-farmers had much less number of lactating animals as compared to the potato farmers.

Figure 9. Per capita annualincome (US$)

Figure 10. Percent contributionof potato.

US$ = 48 INR


Potato growers


32/68



Table 6. Average inventory of lactating animals (No.)Category

Potato growers

Particulars

Marginal Small Medium Large AllNon- potatogrowers

Non-cultivators

Overall

Cattle 5.28 5.00 4.81 3.07 4.87 1.83 1.00 2.57Buffaloes 2.33 2.76 2.13 3.38 2.56 1.17 1.45 1.87

Total 7.61 7.76 6.99 6.44 7.43 3.00 2.45 4.43

4.2.9. Household assets

Household assets are another indicator of economic wellbeing. Various other factors indicating

socio-economic condition of respondents were also benchmarked. Out of four household assets

viz. motorcycle (personal use), car (personal use), pick-up or utility vehicle (business purpose) andcycle (personal use); potato growers had more assets for personal use (Annex 5) . However, non-

potato growers and non-farmers had pick-up vehicles for commercial use.

4.2.10. House condition

House condition index showed less signs of poverty among potato farmers (Figure 11) . The

house condition of even the marginal potato farmers was very near to the highest category (INR

0.5 million house = score 5) considered during the survey. However, house condition of non-

potato growers was much below as compared to the potato growers. The house condition of

non-farmers was even worse vis--vis the non-potato growers. In the study area as well as other

parts of the country potato farmers constitute the better-of segment of the farming community.

As potato is a capital demanding, high risk and high returns crop, it is generally the well-off

farmers who opt for potato farming on a sustainable basis. It was found that farmers who

continue potato cultivation for many years are able to improve their standard of living higher

than non-potato farmers (Rana and Khurana, 2003).

Figure 11. House condition

index (1-5).


Potato growers


33/68



4.2.11. Nutritional security

Regularity and balanced food (inclusion of diverse and nutritive food items) were considered as

indication of nutritional security of respondents 10. Nutritional security is a very important well-

being indicator and this index was particularly low in case of non-farmers ( Figure 12 ). Non-

farmers are generally landless labourers and need higher attention of development agencies.

Landless labourers particularly the migrant ones resort to consuming same type of food for

months together without proper supplementation with milk products or eggs etc. Use of tin

containers for the storage of food grains (protects quality and quantity by checking spoilage by

moisture and insects) was also guided by family income (Annex 5) .

4.2.12. Water and electricity connections

Individual water and electricity connections were also expected to be largely affected by annual

family income (Annex 5) . Non-farmers were once again the disadvantaged segment.

4.2.13. Toilets

Large potato growers had high number of temporary toilets, which were primarily made for their

servants and permanent labourers ( Annex 5 ). Nearly one third of the respondents among non-

potato growers and three fourth among non-farmers were going to open fields/ places to answer

the call of nature. This is an important area where developmental agencies need to act.

10 Investigators were asked to use their judgement based on the some parameters such as inclusion of protein sources(pulses-daily or on alternate days, one egg per person-daily or alternate days if pulses are deficit in food and meat-at leastonce in a week of pulses/egg are deficit); minerals and vitamins (fruits or vegetables-on alternate days); diversification of cereals/carbohydrates-change from the routine at least twice a week. The exercise aimed at providing just an indicatorfor future comparison in the same area. It may or may not be possible to replicate in other places.

Figure 12. Nutritional security acrossfarm categories (%).


Potato growers


34/68



4.2.14. Social participation

Social participation is an indicator of respondents likely exposure to new knowledge and

improved decision making. Membership of social organisation such as Mahila Mandals (women

welfare groups), various self-help groups, farmers clubs, cooperative societies etc. was

considered to measure social participation. In this regard tremendous difference was observed

between potato farmers and non-potato farmers indicating that potato farmers in the study are

socially more united and active ( Figure 13 ). The social participation level of non-farmers was

negligible.

4.2.15. Migration

Migration was studied in relation to work as unskilled labourer only. About 10% of the non-farmer

respondents families reported migration from other areas ( Annex 5 ). Most of the migrant labour

was coming from poor districts of Gujarat such as Panchmahal and Banaskantha; and other states

like Rajasthan (border areas of Rajasthan adjoining Gujarat).

4.2.16. Other indicators

Other indicators like type of childrens school, monthly expenditure of all types (food, children

education, travel and bills) were in line with the expectation in relation to net annual family

income (Annex 5) . Other facilities available on respondents house such as cooking gas,

television, direct to home television, landline telephone connection, mobile telephone, internetfacility and water purifiers were again on expected lines. However, average number of members

capable of using email in case of non-farmers was higher as compared to non-potato cultivators

and all categories of potato farmers except the large farmers. Invariably, the non-farmer family

members using email were undertaking petty jobs (mostly data-feeding) in financial or

information technology related agencies. They all were using email at their work places without

email facilities at homes.

Figure 13.Social participation

level (%).NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents

Potato growers


35/68



4.2.17. Expenditure pattern

Average monthly expenditure of different respondent categories was computed on various

expenditure items such as food, children education, travel, bill etc ( Annex 5 ). For better and easy

international comparison monthly food and total expenditure were graphically depicted in terms

of US$ (Figure 14) .

4.2.18. Food expenditure to net income ratio

As per Engels Law 11 the proportion of income spent on food goes on decreasing as the income

increases (Schumpeter, 1954). Among respondent categories potato farmers were having lowest

food expenditure to total family income ratio ( Figure 15 ). Hence, results (seen along with net

family income ( Figure 8 ) are conclusive and as per Engels Law.

11 Ernst Engel, a nineteenth century German statistician came out with the findings that proportion of income spent onfood goes on decreasing as the income increases. The concept got popular as Engels law. Engels curve is a widelyaccepted tool to measure/ compare poverty.

Figure 14. Monthly food and totalexpenditure (US$)

Figure 15. Ratio of foodexpenditure and netincome (Engels curve).


US$ = 48 INRPotato growers


Potato growers


36/68



4.2.19. Farm assets Inventory of farm assets reflects investment levels in agriculture that ensure operational

certainties. The average number of important farm assets such as tractor, potato planter, potato

digger, tractor-trolley and plough were as per expectation ( Table 7 ).

Table 7. Average inventory of farm assets (Number per farm).

Category

Potato growers

Particulars

Marginal Small Medium Large AllNon- potato

growersOverall

Tractor 0.111 0.412 0.560 1.000 0.412 0.000 0.159

Potatoplanter 0.000 0.112 0.375 0.938 0.225 0.000 0.082Potato digger 0.056 0.118 0.125 0.938 0.175 0.000 0.068

Tractor trolley 0.111 0.353 0.500 0.938 0.369 0.000 0.142

Plough 0.889 0.941 1.375 1.938 1.103 0.833 0.483

4.2.20. Land use pattern

Land use pattern is an important baseline indicator that can be compared over the time in order

to analyse the changes in land ownership and use. On average potato farmers were using 63% of

cultivated land for potato ( Table 8 ). Proportion of potato area increased from 50% on small to

77% on large potato farms. How this proportion changes overtime (even within farm categories)

will give important information for the researchers. Potato was cultivated on the highestproportion of land vis-a-vis all other crops grown on the farms of sampled households ( Table 9 ).

Cotton (26% of cultivated land) followed by wheat (14%), fodder (11%) and groundnut (10%)

were the other important crops on the farms of respondent farmers.


37/68



Table 8. Land use pattern of sampled households (Land in ha).

Category

Potato growers

Particulars

Marginal Small Medium Large AllNon- potato

growersNon-

cultivatorsOverall

Cultivated land(owned)

1.564 2.320 3.356 8.352 2.844 0.808 0.040 1.184

Irrigated 1.564 2.260 3.336 8.352 2.816 0.808 0.040 1.172Rain fed 0.000 0.060 0.020 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.012

Cultivated land(rented in)

0.096 0.116 0,276 2.200 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.128

Cultivated land(rented out)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.040 0.020

Self cultivated land 1.660 2.436 3.632 10.552 3.172 0.808 0.000 1.292Irrigated 1.660 2.376 3.612 10.552 3.144 0.808 0.000 1.280Rain fed 0.000 0.060 0.020 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.012

Potato land 0.844 1.320 2.400 8.176 2.008 0.000 0.000 0.788Uncultivated land 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.068 0.000 0.004

Total land holding 1.672 2.436 3.632 10.552 3.176 0.876 0.000 1.296Note: 1. Rain fed land was not leased-in or leased out.

2. Potato was not cultivated under rain fed conditions in the study area.

Table 9. Average area under different crops (ha).

Category of potato growersParticulars


Non- potatogrowers

Overall

Maize 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.078 0.000 0.030Cotton 0.510 0.600 0.875 3.137 0.855 0.080 0.340

Wheat 0.379 0.378 0.450 0.562 0.409 0.320 0.180Groundnut 0.267 0.070 0.088 2.488 0.346 0.000 0.135Vegetables 0.033 0.014 0.112 0.172 0.052 0.000 0.021Castor 0.000 0.021 0.088 0.200 0.044 0.000 0.017Fodder 0.246 0.476 0.228 0.406 0.352 0.113 0.145

Mustard 0.022 0.000 0.008 0.050 0.011 0.000 0.004Others 0.202 0.110 0.412 0.725 0.254 0.107 0.106Potato 0.844 1.320 2.400 8.176 2.008 0.000 0.788

4.2.21. Soil health awareness Gujarat farmers pay very high attention to the soil health on their farmland by incorporating high

doses of dung manure and opting for frequent green manuring. Incorporation of higher dung

manure doses in Gujarat compared to other Indian states was possible due to well developed

dairy industry in the state. Other indicators of soil health were also studied. More or less equal

number of potato and non-potato respondent farmers undertook testing of their soils ( Table 10 ).

Only 71% potato farmers took action as per the recommendation of soil testing report. The


38/68



average soil pH of the respondent farmers was 7.35 (based on soil testing reports). Since

incorporation of dung manure to the soil and green manuring are very common practices in thearea, about 94% respondents were adopting carbon sequestration measures. About 68%

sampled potato farmers and 20% non-potato farmers were applying green manure to their

farmland. Due to higher uptake of nutrients from soil by potato crop, potato growers were

particularly concerned to maintain soil fertility and health status. Very large proportion of farmers

perceived that their soil texture and/ or structure have not changed over 10 years. However, still a

considerable proportion of respondents believed that soil condition has deteriorated. On an

average potato growers put 0.40 ha under green manuring while this area was just 0.08 ha in case

of non-potato growers. Potato farmers were adopting green manuring to greater extent in order

to maintain or enhance productivity of land as potato is relatively a capital intensive, high risk,high reward crop. Potato crop extracts higher soil nutrients compared to other crops grown by

the farmers in the study area.

Table 10. Soil health awareness indicators



Non- potatogrowers

Soil testing index (0-1) 0.222 0.313 0.313 0.688 0.319 0.333

Action on test report (0-1) 1 0.333 1 0.875 0.713 1Soil pH 7.5 -- 7.25 7.38 7.35 --Carbon sequestration measures(0-1)

1.000 0.875 1.000 0.889 0.938 1.000

Green manuring done (0-1) 0.615 0.800 0.667 0.385 0.682 0.200Soil change (No. farmers)

Better 0 0 0 1 1 0Same 5 6 10 7 28 3Worse 1 1 0 3 5 1Dont Know 1 0 0 2 3 1

Average green manuring area(ha)

0.40 0.24 0.64 0.59 0.40 0.08

Soil testing charges were nil for all respondents who got their soils tested. The main reason for testing was tube wellinstallation

4.2.22. Irrigation status

Except for large potato growers, furrow irrigation was the only method of irrigation with

respondent farmers (Table 11) . About 17% of responding potato farmers believe their irrigation

water was bad. High fluoride and salt level were the major reasons for bad quality of irrigation

water. Purchasing irrigation water, by those who dont have their own tube wells, was a common

practice in the area and average price paid for one hour irrigation water was nearly INR 90. Since

water table is very low, many farmers reported scarcity of irrigation water particularly in summer

months.


39/68



Table 11. Irrigation status and quality of irrigation water



Non-potatogrowers

Overall

Type of irrigation (%)Furrow 100.000 100.00 100.00 74.375 97.729 100.000 99.11Drip 0 0 0 25.625 2.271 0 1.96

Quality of irrigation water(No. of responses)

Good 15 13 13 12 53 6 59Bad 2 3 3 4 12 0 12Very Bad 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Water availability (No. of responses)Adequate 16 12 12 14 54 2 56Less 2 4 4 2 12 2 14

Scarce 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Problem of irrigation water(No. of responses)

Low water table 1 2 2 2 7 1 8Fluoride level 1 2 1 4 0 4Saline 1 1 0 2 4 0 4

Sale/Purchase of water (No. of responses)

Yes 12 11 6 1 30 5 35No 5 5 10 15 35 1 36

Price of water (Rs/hr) 99.167 90.909 73.000 100 90.479 100.00 91.77All respondents eliciting bad irrigation water, stated salty water as the reason for bad quality water

4.2.23. Adoption rate

Area covered by particular potato variety shows its adoption rate in the area. Kufri Badshah was

the leading potato variety in the area followed by K. Pukhraj and K. Luavkar (Table 12) . Based on

the two year average i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 K. Badshah covered nearly 64% potato area in the

study area followed by K. Pukhraj (33%) and K. Lauvkar (3%).

Table 12. Area under different potato varieties (Ha per farm)

Category of potato growersParticularsMarginal Small Medium Large All

Kufri Badshah2007-08 0.527 1.050 1.988 4.225 1.3692008-09 0.796 1.106 1.638 2.925 1.285

Kufri Lauvkar

2007-08 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.853 0.0762008-09 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.493 0.044

Kufri Pukhraj2007-08 0.065 0.205 0.773 4.627 0.6722008-09 0.055 0.188 0.680 5.067 0.682


40/68



4.2.24. Variety wise potato yield

Potato yield is an important indicator of the overall effect of potato research and development

activities in an area. Overall the potato yield was 28 tonnes per hectare (Table 13). Average yield

of different potato varieties across the farm categories did not vary considerably. Average potato

yield on sampled farms may seem to be higher than the national average of 16.76 tonnes per

hectare during triennium ending 2007-08; but it is quite close to the state average of 26.65

tonnes during same triennium (DES, 2010). Gujarat has the highest reported potato yield among

major potato producing states in India (Kesari and Rana, 2008).

Table 13. Variety wise potato yield during 2007-08(tonne/ha)

Potato growers Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large All

Kufri Badshah 22.35 27.50 29.22 28.45 26.86

Kufri Lauvkar -- -- -- 28.44 28.44

Kufri Pukhraj 22.73 27.01 29.48 27.72 27.35

Total 22.40 27.43 29.27 28.09 27.86

4.2.25. Seed replacement rate

Seed replacement rate in potato crop is an important indicator of crop health and farmers

attitude towards farm business. Seed replacement rate was same for K. Badshah and K. Pukhraj

varieties. However, this rate was slow (after the interval of 1.5 years) in case of K. Lauvkar

(Table 14) .

Table 14. Seed replacement rate of different potato varieties (interval in years)

Potato growers Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large All

Kufri Badshah 1.07 1.00 1.15 1.36 1.08

Kufri Lauvkar -- -- -- 1.50 1.50

Kufri Pukhraj 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.30 1.08

4.2.26. Seed source Quality of seed potato depends on the source of seed to a very large extent. The highest

proportion of seed potato in the study area was supplied by the cooperative societies after

obtaining it from reputed seed potato growers in Punjab (Table 15). Other important sources of

seed were seed companies, market traders (again supplying seed from Punjab and western Uttar

Pradesh). Very small quantities of seed were retained out of own farms or obtained from other


41/68



local farmers. Small and medium farmers had higher dependence on cooperative societies for

getting quality seed-potato while medium and large farmers purchased more seed from private

seed companies than the cooperative societies.Table 15. Source of seed-potato used at respondents farms (%)


Marginal Small Medium Large All2007-08 Own 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.81 5.62

Neighbour 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 1.12Market trader 30.00 10.00 4.55 22.22 16.85Commercial seed grower 10.00 0.00 9.09 3.70 5.62

Cooperative societies 55.00 75.00 36.36 22.22 44.94

Seed Companies 0.00 15.00 45.45 33.33 24.72

Direct from Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 1.

Documents

Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-prone Gujarat, India