Assessing potato farmers' perceptions on abiotic stresses

ISSN 0256-8748Social SciencesWorking PaperNo. 2010 - 2

Wor

king

Pap

er 2

010-

2

Assessing potato farmers’perceptions 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

ii

Wor

king

Pap

er

Assessing potato farmers’perceptions 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

Inte

rna

tio

na

l P

ota

to C

en

ter

• W

ork

ing

Pa

pe

r 1 © International Potato Center (CIP), 2010

ISSN 0256-8748

CIP publications contribute important development information to thepublic arena. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material fromthem in their own publications. As copyright holder CIP requestsacknowledgement, and a copy of the publication where the citationor material appears. Please send a copy to the Communication and PublicAwareness Department at the address below.

International Potato CenterP.O.Box 1558, Lima 12, [email protected] • www.cipotato.org

Produced by the CIP Communication and PublicAwareness Department (CPAD)

Correct citation:Assessing potato farmers’ perceptions on abiotic stresses and implicationsfor crop improvement research 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. InternationalPotato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru. Working Paper 2010-2. 57 p.

LayoutZandra Vasquez

Printed in Peru by Comercial Gráfica SucrePress run: 150December 2010

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

The Social Sciences Working Paper Series is intended to advance social science knowledge about production and utilizationof potato, sweetpotato, and root and tuber crops in developing countries to encourage debate and exchange of ideas. Theviews expressed in the papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the InternationalPotato Center (CIP) or of the United States Agency for International Development of the United States Government.

Comments are invited.

iii

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. vi Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledments .................................................................................................................................................... vii Executive 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

iv

4.2.18. Food expenditure to net income ratio.......................................................................... 25 4.2.19. Farm assets ............................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.20. Land use pattern................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.21. Soil health awareness ......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.22. Irrigation status ..................................................................................................................... 28 4.2.23. Adoption rate ........................................................................................................................ 29 4.2.24. Variety wise potato yield ................................................................................................... 30 4.2.25. Seed replacement rate ....................................................................................................... 30 4.2.26. Seed source ............................................................................................................................ 30 4.2.27. Seed rate.................................................................................................................................. 31 4.2.28. Seed size.................................................................................................................................. 32 4.2.29. Cut/whole seed use ............................................................................................................. 32 4.2.30. Retention of own seed........................................................................................................ 33 4.2.31. Price satisfaction................................................................................................................... 33 4.2.32. Post Harvest Losses.............................................................................................................. 34 4.2.33. Level of mechanisation ...................................................................................................... 35 4.2.34. Capacity building ................................................................................................................. 35 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................... 37 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 38 References .................................................................................................................................................... 41 Annexes .................................................................................................................................................... 43 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 Figures Figure 1a. Leading potato growing countries (area) ....................................................................................6 Figure 1b. Leading potato growing countries (production) ......................................................................6 Figure 2. Map of the study area.........................................................................................................................9 Figure 3. Priority index (0-100) of various varietal attributes ............................................................... 16

v

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

vi

Acronyms and abbreviations ACGR = 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 for

sustainable development with worldwide operations and major emphasis on sustainably

improving people’s 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)

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 this

study. 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.

viii

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 1

Assessing potato farmers’ perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-prone Gujarat, India

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction India 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 50C 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 are

developed 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 their farms?

2. What is the farmers’ perception on desirable and undesirable characters of existing potato 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?

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 impact assessment 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 employed

to 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 important

attributes, 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.


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 in

the 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-à-vis the non-potato growers.



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 from

other 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 (Engel’s 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 and

2008-09. Seed rate across varieties and farmer categories didn’t show wide fluctuation.

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

source.



5

Recommendations Along with heat and drought tolerance the breeding team of the project should also pay

attention 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.



Assessing potato farmers’ perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-prone Gujarat, India

1. INTRODUCTION

Potato is the world’s 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)



7

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-à-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.



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 survey1. 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 NH

Patel, In-charge Potato Research Station, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat.



9

Figure 2. Map of the study area



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 and

2008-09) and various categories of potato growers i.e. marginal (potato area <1ha), small (potato

area 1ha to <2ha), medium (potato area 2ha to <4ha) and large (potato area • 4ha). Details of

sample households are given in Table 1. The respondents were selected in such a way that all

categories were adequately represented. However, the overall estimates were derived using

population proportion in respective category as weight.

Detailed information about the village was obtained from Panchayat office (Village council). Out

of this information proportion of actual population across the categories was calculated. Overall

weighted averages (potato farmers as well as the area average) were calculated using population

proportion within categories as weights.

Interview schedule was specially designed to meet the requirements of survey. Before finalizing,

the questionnaire was circulated among multidisciplinary team of scientists involved in the

project. Copy of the questionnaire is appended as Annex 7. Data were collected using personal

interview techniques. In addition to personal interviews, focus group discussions were also

carried out in order to collect information related to village profile. Such information included

overall village level facilities and organizations having direct bearing on the socio-economic

condition of sampled farmers.

Table 1. Sampling details (No. of respondents)

Category of potato growers Villages

Marginal Small Medium Large All

Non- potato

Land less

All

Indirapuram 13 10 2 1 26 5 11 42

Nandol 2 2 9 14 27 1 5 33

Premnagar 3 5 5 1 14 0 4 18

All 18 17 16 16 67 6 20 93 Population (%) 11.47 16.22 7.99 3.47 39.15 6.15 54.70 100.0

Marginal = having potato area up to 1ha; small = having potato area more than 1ha and up to 2ha; medium = having potato area more than 2ha and up to 4ha; and large = having potato area more than 4 ha

For better understanding of some important attributes, indices were calculated. Detailed account

of assumptions and procedures employed for calculating these indices is given in Annex 1. In

order to test independence among potato farmers’ categories on various factors/ attributes, chi-

square test (Gupta, 2009) with following test statistics was used where O and E represent

observed and expected frequencies, respectively.



11

E

EO 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 development 4.1.1. 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 contribute

towards 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 factor2 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 technologies3.

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 responses on 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 to the conventional furrow application. Sprinkler irrigation was found to initiate and aggravate late blight infection in potato crop. Hence, drip irrigation was the best water saving technology available with the studied farmers. In addition to water saving this irrigation technology was responsible for checking late blight infection and better efficiency of nutrients through fertigation. Gujarat government is providing 50% subsidy (with the cap of INR 50000 per ha) on water saving technologies. During previous few years farmers have adopted these water saving technologies very fast making them quite popular in the state.



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

extension services. It was observed that marginal farmers didn’t have assured source of irrigation

and 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 growers Responses

Marginal Small Medium Large All % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In Yield can further increase.

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

Sufficient irrigation water

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 1.65 High Yielding Potato varieties

100.00 3.12 100.00 3.75 93.75 3.56 100.00 3.38 98.51 3.45

Water saving technology

83.33 2.67 76.47 2.92 62.50 2.79 75.00 3.00 74.63 2.84

Drought resistant varieties**

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 Blight management

88.89 2.94 75.00 3.33 68.75 2.79 93.33 3.54 81.54 3.13

Management of other diseases*

43.75 1.75 53.33 2.00 43.67 1.50 66.67 2.00 52.46 1.83

Adequate availability of pesticides

50.00 2.08 43.75 2.56 56.25 2.18 37.50 2.33 46.97 2.27

Adequate availability of fertilizers

50.00 2.45 53.33 2.11 53.33 2.00 43.75 2.36 50.00 2.25

Adequate availability of funds

55.56 3.18 60.00 2.89 75.00 2.78 56.35 2.40 61.54 2.82

Availability of cheaper machinery*

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 2.71 Better Agril Extension Services***

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 statistically different response levels among farm categories at * = 10%; ** = 5%; and *** = 1% level of significance. Chi square test was applied on actual 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



13

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 -- 75.0

High 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 Kufri was the first potato breeding station in India)

4.1.3. Reasons for abandoning varieties

Four varieties were reported abandoned4 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 some negative perception were considered abandoned.



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 not carried 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 180C 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.



15

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

Category of potato growers Type of stress


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 influence

on 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 perceived5 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 yields were 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 sold initially are likely to incur losses. However, those who could hold their produce are likely to get higher net income as compared to 2007-08 despite of nearly 35% lower average estimated potato yield during this year.



4.1.6. Early maturing potato varieties

Early maturing potato varieties are very important for farmers in Gujarat state in general and

Gandhinagar 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 top preferred five

attributes.



17

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 varieties6.

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 higher

importance to this attribute too.

4.2. Baseline indicators for future impact assessment Education 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 that potato prices are low during harvesting season and prices rise after the produce is cold stored. Marginal farmers tend to avoid paying cold storage charges and mostly opt for storing their produce using conventional methods. Hence better storability as an attribute in new potato varieties is likely to be more beneficial to the poor potato farmers having small land holdings.



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 slightly

higher 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 much comfortable life. People are tempted to supplement family income through jobs, labour work and running petty businesses/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 growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents

Potato growers



19

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 don’t

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 area8. 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 income9. 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 as savings were not subtracted. 9 In all cases potato was a cash crop. Due to very high temperatures following crop harvest farmers were not retaining more than 2 months’ potato consumption equivalent for home consumption. Home consumption of potato varied between 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 across farm categories (5%)


Potato growers



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 NP= Non potato growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents

Potato growersNP NC AR



21

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) is

purchased 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 annual income (US$)

Figure 10. Percent contribution of potato.

US$ = 48 INR NP= Non potato growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents

Potato growers



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

Category

Potato growers

Particulars

Marginal Small Medium Large All Non- potato growers

Non- cultivators

Overall

Cattle 5.28 5.00 4.81 3.07 4.87 1.83 1.00 2.57

Buffaloes 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) and

cycle (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-à-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



23

4.2.11. Nutritional security

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

indication of nutritional security of respondents10. 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 least once 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 indicator for future comparison in the same area. It may or may not be possible to replicate in other places.

Figure 12. Nutritional security across farm categories (%).


Potato growers



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 children’s 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, internet

facility 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 growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents

Potato growers



25

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 Engel’s Law11 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 Engel’s Law.

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

Figure 14. Monthly food and total expenditure (US$)

Figure 15. Ratio of food expenditure and net income (Engel’s curve).

NP= Non potato growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents US$ = 48 INR

Potato growers


Potato growers



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


Non- potato growers

Overall

Tractor 0.111 0.412 0.560 1.000 0.412 0.000 0.159

Potato planter

0.000 0.112 0.375 0.938 0.225 0.000 0.082

Potato 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 highest

proportion 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.



27

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

Category

Potato growers

Particulars


Non- potato growers

Non- cultivators

Overall

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 1.172

Rain 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 1.292

Irrigated 1.660 2.376 3.612 10.552 3.144 0.808 0.000 1.280

Rain 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 0.788

Uncultivated 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 1.296

Note: 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 growers Particulars


Non- potato growers

Overall

Maize 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.078 0.000 0.030

Cotton 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 0.180

Groundnut 0.267 0.070 0.088 2.488 0.346 0.000 0.135

Vegetables 0.033 0.014 0.112 0.172 0.052 0.000 0.021

Castor 0.000 0.021 0.088 0.200 0.044 0.000 0.017

Fodder 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 0.004

Others 0.202 0.110 0.412 0.725 0.254 0.107 0.106

Potato 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



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 the

area, 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- potato growers

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 1

Soil 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 0.200

Soil change (No. farmers)

Better 0 0 0 1 1 0

Same 5 6 10 7 28 3

Worse 1 1 0 3 5 1

Don’t 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 well installation

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 don’t 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.



29

Table 11. Irrigation status and quality of irrigation water



Non- potato growers

Overall

Type of irrigation (%) Furrow 100.000 100.00 100.00 74.375 97.729 100.000 99.11 Drip 0 0 0 25.625 2.271 0 1.96 Quality of irrigation water (No. of responses)

Good 15 13 13 12 53 6 59 Bad 2 3 3 4 12 0 12 Very Bad 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Water availability (No. of responses) Adequate 16 12 12 14 54 2 56 Less 2 4 4 2 12 2 14 Scarce 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Problem of irrigation water (No. of responses)

Low water table 1 2 2 2 7 1 8 Fluoride level 1 2 1 4 0 4 Saline 1 1 0 2 4 0 4 Sale/Purchase of water (No. of responses)

Yes 12 11 6 1 30 5 35 No 5 5 10 15 35 1 36 Price of water (Rs/hr) 99.167 90.909 73.000 100 90.479 100.00 91.77 All 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)


Marginal Small Medium Large All Kufri Badshah

2007-08 0.527 1.050 1.988 4.225 1.369

2008-09 0.796 1.106 1.638 2.925 1.285

Kufri Lauvkar

2007-08 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.853 0.076

2008-09 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.493 0.044

Kufri Pukhraj

2007-08 0.065 0.205 0.773 4.627 0.672

2008-09 0.055 0.188 0.680 5.067 0.682



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


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



31

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 All 2007-08 Own 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.81 5.62

Neighbour 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 1.12

Market trader 30.00 10.00 4.55 22.22 16.85

Commercial 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 1.12

2008-09 Own 0.00 0.00 5.56 12.50 5.62

Neighbour 0.00 0.00 5.56 3.13 2.25

Market trader 33.33 5.56 5.56 21.88 17.98

Commercial seed grower 0.00 0.00 11.11 12.5 6.74

Cooperative societies 61.90 77.78 33.33 15.62 42.70

Seed Companies 4.76 16.67 38.88 31.25 23.60

Direct from Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 1.12

4.2.27. Seed rate

Seed rate is an important factor that has bearing on the overall potato yield of a farm. This vital

information can be compared in the future to study the change of cultural practices among

sampled farms. Overall nearly 1 ton of seed potato was used per ha (Table 16). Seed rate was

generally found to be lower among margined and small farmers.

Table 16. Variety wise seed rate (ton/ha)



Kufri Badshah

2007-08 2.23 2.19 2.51 2.66 2.31

2008-09 2.36 2.18 2.52 2.71 2.35

Kufri Lauvkar

2007-08 - - - 2.75 2.75

2008-09 - - - 2.70 2.70

Kufri Pukhraj

2007-08 1.83 2.71 3.1 2.58 2.52

2008-09 1.99 2.97 2.99 2.68 2.66



4.2.28. Seed size

Very high proportion of farmers used medium sized seed potato followed by those who used

small sized and then who used the large size seed (Table 17). Medium sized (egg size) is

considered the best however due to price and availability issues farmers use different sizes of

tubers as seed. Very small proportion of farmers used biotechnologically produced virus-free

seed of very small size. Biotechnologically produced seed refers to healthy seed produced under

controlled environment in biotechnology laboratories (for initial production and multiplication

stages) and net/ glass houses for later stages.

Table 17. Size of seed-potato used by respondents (% of responses)

Particulars Category of potato growers

Marginal Small Medium Large All Total (2007-08)

Small 42.11 36.84 13.63 7.14 22.73

Medium 47.37 42.12 77.27 92.86 68.18

Large 10.52 10.52 9.09 0.00 6.82

Other 0.00 10.52 0.00 0.00 2.27

Total (2008-09)

Small 55.56 35.29 15.00 33.33 34.25

Medium 38.89 52.95 80.00 66.67 60.27

Large 5.50 5.88 5.00 0.00 4.11

Other 0.00 5.88 0.00 0.00 1.37

4.2.29. Cut/whole seed use

Use of cut seed is very common in places where seed-potato is costly and the produce is not

retained for next year’s seed requirement12. However, for producing healthy seed-potato, use of

whole tuber is one of the important requirements. Cut seed economizes on seed cost without

affecting productivity if it is free from infections. On an average cut seed use was nearly 50%

greater than the whole seed (Table 18). Generally the large sized seed potato tubers are cut into

3-5 pieces while smaller ones are used whole.

12 This is a commonly known information as cut seed is more likely to spread diseases in the upcoming crop.



33

Table 18. Category-wise cut/whole seed-potato utilization pattern (% of responses)

4.2.30. Retention of own seed

Generally seed contributes more than half of the variable cost of potato cultivation and own seed

provides big financial relief to potato farmers. Only 21% respondents retained some seed potato

from own crop (Table 19). Seed plot technique (a scientific seed-potato production technique

invented by CPRI) was the most commonly used method of producing own seed followed by

separate plot (without adopting the recommended practices) for producing seed, selecting best

looking plants and selecting small sized tubers from the produce.

Table 19. Method of producing own seed (% of responses)



A. Farmers using own seed 11.11 0.00 31.25 43.75 20.90

B. Method#

Separate seed plot 50.00 0.00 40.00 14.29 28.57

Best looking plant 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 14.29 Small tubers 0.00 0.00 20.00 14.29 14.29

Seed plot technique 50.00 0.00 40.00 42.85 42.86

# = % of responses out of own seed using farmers

4.2.31. Price satisfaction

Only 17% respondents were satisfied with the price they received (Table 20). Farmers’ non-

satisfaction over price they were getting was due to higher production followed by low potato

exports to other countries, poor marketing infrastructure, higher production cost and market

malpractices (Acharya and Agarwal, 1987). Respondents believe that minimum support price for

potato followed by export promotion; improved marketing system and higher processing can

ensure better prices to them. In India no minimum support price scheme exists for potato.

However, farmers’ bodies are continuously demanding this scheme in potato. The fulfillment of

this demand seems unlikely.


Marginal Small Medium Large All Total (2007-08) Cut 57.89 52.63 80.95 62.96 63.95 Whole 42.11 47.37 19.05 37.04 36.05 Total (2008-09) Cut 42.11 58.82 87.50 56.67 59.76 Whole 57.89 41.18 12.50 43.33 40.24



Table 20. Price satisfaction level of potato farmers (% of responses)



Price satisfaction 22.22 0.00 18.75 25.00 16.67

Reasons of dissatisfaction (Multiple responses)

Excess production 75.00 73.33 58.33 72.73 70.00

Market malpractices 16.67 20.00 16.67 9.09 16.00

Poor marketing infrastructure 33.33 13.33 8.33 27.27 20.00

Higher production cost 8.33 20.00 33.33 18.18 20.00

Less export 12.50 18.75 33.33 43.75 27.27

How to get right price (Multiple responses)

Export promotion 20.00 25.00 50.00 55.56 35.42

Minimum Support Price 73.33 83.33 75.00 44.44 68.75

Higher processing proportion -- 8.33 16.67 11.11 4.17

Improved marketing system 26.67 16.67 13.33 11.11 17.91

Note: Potato prices pertain to the period between February 11 to 16, 2009

4.2.32. Post Harvest Losses

The harvest of potato crop in the area coincides with the onset of summer. On an average

postharvest losses were highest at the stage of sorting and re-filling (after cold storage) followed

by losses at harvesting stage and then the first time bag filling at household/ farm level (Table

21). Potato is cold stored between April and December months in the study area. Before putting

potato in cold stores, farmers store them in heaps for 15 days to two months depending upon the

ongoing market prices. The purposes of heap storage are curing skin of potato; exploring

opportunity of right selling price to save cold storage charges; and preparing potato tubers for

better processing. Cut/ cracked tubers, green tubers and rotting were the main sources of

postharvest losses at all the stages.



35

Table 21. Assessment of post harvest losses (Multiple responses)


Marginal Small Medium Large All Harvesting method Bullock 100.00 100.00 62.5 31.25 74.63 Mechanical 0.00 0.00 37.5 68.75 25.37 PHL at Harvesting (%) 4.22 5.12 4.28 4.833 4.66 % responses Cut/Crack 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Green 14.29 28.57 30.37 10.00 21.57 Rotting 50.00 35.71 38.46 30.00 39.22 PHL at bag filling loss (%) 3.00 3.22 3.81 5.79 3.50 % responses Crack 16.67 25.00 50.00 40.00 33.33 Green 33.33 50.0 66.67 80.00 57.14 Rotting 50.00 50.0 50.0 20.00 42.85 PHL after cold storage (%) 5.67 7.00 6.83 3.88 6.30 % responses Green 0.00 33.33 25.00 20.00 21.43 Rotting 100.00 33.33 75.00 60.00 64.29 Weight

loss 50.00 33.33 25.00 40.00 35.71

4.2.33. Level of mechanisation

Mechanisation is very important in modern potato cultivation. However, in the study area it was

less than absolute due to small holdings, availability of cheap labour and lack of funds. Absolute

mechanisation in the preceding sentence refers to 100% mechanisation in four important field

operations, viz., field preparation, planting, earthing up and potato digging. Mechanisation index

was high in case of field preparation and potato planting (Table 22). The index was relatively low

in case of earthing up and digging which were done with the help of bullocks (partial

mechanisation).

4.2.34. Capacity building

Trainings were imparted to the farmers by state government through horticulture department or

state agricultural universities. Nearly 23% potato farmers got some kind of training in the field of

agriculture (Table 23). Still higher number of respondents believe they need to be trained on

technical know how of agriculture and how to use various government schemes in the field of

agriculture.



Table 22. Level of mechanization (% of responses)


Marginal Small Medium Large All Field preparation (mechanization index; 0-1) 0.833 0.735 0.833 0.938 0.802

Total mechanization 77.78 64.71 80.00 93.33 78.46

Partial 22.22 35.39 20.00 6.67 21.54

No mechanization 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Planting (mechanization index; 0-1 ) 0.889 0.941 1.00 1.00 0.943


Partial 11.11 11.76 0.00 0.00 6.06


Earthing up (mechanization index, 0-1 ) 0.528 0.558 0.667 0.600 0.575


Partial 94.44 88.24 66.67 80.00 83.08

No mechanization 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Digging (mechanization index, 0-1 ) 0.528 0.529 0.600 0.844 0.571


Partial 83.33 94.12 53.33 6.25 60.61


Table 23. Extent of participation in training activities (% of responses)

Particulars Potato growers

Marginal Small Medium Large All Got training 21.43 18.19 30.00 23.08 22.92

Gap in technical knowledge 18.75 41.67 23.08 33.33 29.63

Areas#

Technical know how 100.00 85.71 85.71 100.00 92.59

Govt. Scheme -- 28.57 28.57 -- 14.81

# % responses out of respondents who elicited gap in technical knowledge



37

CONCLUSIONS

1. All respondents across all potato grower categories believed their potato yields can

further increase. As per farmers’ perception, high yielding new potato varieties followed

by heat tolerant potato varieties, proper late blight control, water saving technologies

and drought tolerant varieties were seen as important factors that could increase potato

yield.

2. Low yield, late blight susceptibility, tuber cracking during bulking stage, lower price of

tubers, heat susceptibility, poor storability and longer duration of maturity were

important reasons quoted by responding farmers for abandoning potato varieties in the

past.

3. Ninety percent of respondents believed that heat was a limiting factor towards

achieving higher yield levels. Relatively lower proportion (31.5%) of respondents

revealed drought as abiotic stress to the potato crop. However, higher proportion of

small and marginal farmers expressed drought as a potential threat to their potato crop.

4. Heat tolerance followed by high yield, resistance to late blight, suitability for processing,

resistance to potato tuber moth and early maturity were important attributes farmers

wanted in new potato varieties.

5. Potato growers comprised the richest section of respondents followed by non-potato

growers and non-farmers. Within potato farmers, as expected, larger farmers were the

richest followed by medium, small and marginal ones. Contribution of potato in total

and farm increased as the size of potato holding increased indicating that larger farmers

were in a position to reap economies of scale on account of heavy fixed costs in potato

cultivation.

6. Most of the baseline indicators/ standpoints were governed by family income.

Educational qualification of head of family, house condition, nutritional security,

individual water and electricity connections, toilet facilities, social participation level,

type of children’s schools, monthly expenditures (food, children education, travel and

bills), cooking gas connection, DTH TV, ratio of food expenditure to net family income

(Engel’s curve) and farm assets were on expected lines vis-a-vis the family income.

7. On an average potato farmers in the study area were putting 63% of cultivated land

under potato. Cotton, wheat, fodder and groundnut were the other important crops on

the farms of respondent farmers.



8. Kufri Badshah was the leading potato variety in the area followed by Kufri Pukhraj and

Kufri Luavkar.

9. The overall potato yield in survey was 28 tonnes per hectare compared to just 16 tonnes

at national level (DES, 2010).

10. In a heat prone state like Gujarat where seed degeneration rate is very high (Singh et al.,

2000), seed replacement rate is also faster (Kumar et al., 2008). Seed replacement rate

was same for Kufri Badshah and Kufri Pukhraj varieties (after interval of 1.08 years).

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

11. Overall 2.52 to 2.66 ton seed potato was used per ha. Seed rate across varieties and

farmer categories didn’t show wide fluctuation.

12. Only 21% respondents retained some seed potato from own crop. Seed plot technique

was the most commonly used method of producing own seed followed by separate plot

for producing seed, selecting best looking plants and selecting small sized tubers from

the produce.

13. Only 17% respondents were satisfied with the price they received. Farmers’ non-

satisfaction over price they were getting was due to higher production cost followed by

low potato exports to other countries, poor marketing infrastructure, higher production

cost and market malpractices.

14. Out of four important field operations, viz., field preparation, planting, earthing-up and

potato digging, Mechanisation index was high in case of field preparation and potato

planting. The index was relatively low in case of earthing up and digging which were

done with the help of bullocks.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For breeding team of the project

Extent of heat tolerance in varieties: Temperature rise of 10C is predicted during main potato

crop growing winter season by the year 2020 (Singh et al., 2008). Study also predicts 19.65% fall

in potato yield by 2020 in the state of Karnataka followed by Gujarat (18.23% fall) and

Maharashtra (13.02% fall). Potato varieties intended to be released under GTZ project (assuming

release in 2011-12; full adoption in 2015-16) are supposed to have field presence in 2020. Since

heat is already affecting potato yield in the study area crop improvement project should consider

development of potato varieties that can give normal yield at least at 20C higher minimum night

temperature (i.e. 220C) than the conventional potato varieties.



39

PTM resistance: Second and third most important attributes in new potato varieties i.e. high

yield and late blight resistance (Figure 3) generally get adequate attention in potato breeding

programmes. However, special stress needs to be given on breeding PTM resistant varieties for

the study area. PTM is a severe problem in the study area which is forcing potato growers to

adopt early varieties for table purpose only. Potato growers find themselves handicapped for

traditionally storing produce in heap etc. even for shorter duration of one month. Agro-

climatically the study area is highly suited for producing processing grade potatoes; however, the

PTM menace restricts potato farmers adopting this lucrative option. The proper management

practices of crop in the field and timely planting of seed can reduce the PTM infection in field.

Processing varieties: 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 Rana and Pandey (2007) clearly

showed that the proportional demand of processing grade tubers in this state is much higher

than the national one. Breeders should assign higher importance to this attribute than depicted

in Figure 3.

Early maturing potato varieties: Small size of land holdings in India, in general, and in the study

area, in particular, induces farmers to take another crop after potato before the main Kharif (rainy

season) crop. Although farmers have an option of going for Kufri Pukhraj which is an early

maturing and high yielding variety, yet another early variety having better storability and late

blight resistance will certainly be preferred by the potato farmers.

Better potato storability through new varieties: Poor farmers with small land holdings avoid

paying cold store charges and opt for conventional storage to higher extent. Better storability as

an attribute in new potato varieties is likely to be more beneficial to the poor potato farmers

having small land holdings.

Tube wells for small and marginal farmers: Higher proportion of marginal and small farmers

considered drought to be a potential threat for their potato crops. In the study area entire

irrigation is through deep tube wells. Water is pumped from a depth of up to 500 feet. Land

holdings being small and digging tube well very costly, most of the tube wells were jointly

owned. Small and marginal farmers, in higher proportion, lack resources and access to resources

for constructing their own tube well. They have to buy water from others which is very costly and



sometimes unavailable when required. Cooperatives are very successful in the state of Gujarat

and people by and large understand its importance. State government should encourage

cooperative tube wells through establishing self help groups of the farmers providing them seed

money.

Agricultural Extension services targeting small and marginal farmers: Marginal farmers

showed higher than average importance for better agricultural extension services and lower

input prices in further increasing their potato yield. As this is economically the most vulnerable

farmers’ class, concerned government bodies need to address their problems specially.



41

REFERENCES

Acharya, SS. 2009. Food Security and Indian Agriculture: Policies, Production Performance and

Environment. Agricultural Economics Research Review. Vol. 22: 1-19.

Acharya, SS and NL Agarwal. 1987. Agricultural Marketing in India (Second Edition). Oxford and

IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. pp 218-220.

Basu P S and Minhas J S. 1991. Heat Tolerance and Assimilate Transport in Different Potato

Genotypes. Journal of Experimental Botany 42: 861-866.

Chand, Ramesh, SS Raju and LM Pande. 2007. Growth Crisis in Agriculture: Severity and

Options at National and State levels. Economic and Political Weekely. Vol. 42(26).

C P R I. 2009. Annual Report 2008-09. Central Potato Research Institute, ICAR, Shimla 171 001 HP:

vi+209.

DES. 2010. State-wise potato area and production statistics. Directorate of Economics and

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

FAO. 2008. New Light on a Hidden Treasure. An End-of-Year Review (International Year of the

Potato-2008). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome: 148 p.

Gupta S P. 2009. Chi-Square test and Goodness of Fit. Statistical Methods. Sultan Chand and

Sons, New Delhi. Thirty seventh revised edition: 953-1003.

Kesari and Rajesh K Rana. 2008. Potato Revolution in Gujarat: Lessons for other states. Poster

presented in Global Potato Conference – 2008, New Delhi, December 09-12, 2008.

Kumar, NR, NK Pandey and RK Rana. 2008. Production and Marketing of Potato in Banaskantha

District of Gujarat. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing. 22(1): 99-110.



Lal, SS, PM Govindakrishnan, VK Dua, JP Singh and SK Pandey. 2008. Impact Assessment of

Climate Change for Research Priority Planning in Horticultural Crops. CPRI, Shimla (India): xx +

228 p.

Minhas J S and Devendra Kumar. 2005. Tuberization in Heat Tolerant Hybrid HT/92-621 under

Controlled Temperature Conditions. Potato Journal. 32: 195-196.

Rana, Rajesh K. and SK Pandey. 2007. Processing Quality Potatoes in India: An Analysis of

Industry’s Demand. Processed Food Industry. Vol. 10 (8): 26-35

Rana, Rajesh K. and SM Paul Khurana. 2003. Potato Gluts: Steps to Safeguard Farmers’ Interests

(In Hindi). Agri Watch. Vol. 4(22).

Shekhawat, GS and PS Naik. 1999. Potato in India. Technical Bulletin-1. CPRI, Shimla (India):

99 p.

Schumpeter, J.A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, 1954,

p. 961

Singh, JP, SS Lal, PM Govindakrishnan, VK Dua and SK Pandey. 2008. Climate Change and

Potato Production in India. Poster presented in Global Potato Conference – 2008, New Delhi,

December 09-12, 2008.

Singh, S, VK Garg, S Kumar and GS Shekhawat. 2000. Seed Production Manual. Central Potato

Research Institue, Shimla. pp. 91.



43

ANNEXES

Annex 1. Computation of various indices used in the study Sr. Index Range Description 1 Labour participation 0 to 1 No worker = 0; part time worker = 0.5; and full time

worker = 1 2 Soil testing 0 to 1 Not tested = 0; and tested =1 3 Action taken on soil

report 0 to 1 No action = 0; and action taken = 1

4 Green manuring 0 to 1 Not adopted = 0; and adopted = 1 5 Level of mechanization 0 to 1 No mechanization = 0; partial mechanization = 0.5; and

complete mechanization = 1 6 Education 1-5 Illiterate = 1; 7 years of schooling = 2; secondary = 3;

secondary specialized = 4; and higher education = 5 7 Priority index of

varietal attributes 0-100 Multiple responses were assigned weights (1st response

= equal weight; 2nd and 3rd responses = half weight; subsequent responses = one-fourth weight) The figure so obtained was converted equivalent to % multiple responses.

Annex 2. Priority indices for breeding new potato varieties (Multiple responses) Category of potato growers Top 10 breeding

priorities Marginal Small Medium Large All

% importance

1. Heat tolerant** 100.00 68.75 100.00 100.00 92.19 22.43 2. High yield*** 56.25 100.00 93.75 37.50 71.88

17.49 3.Resistant to late blight***

31.25 43.75 25.00 93.50 48.43 11.78

4. Resistance to PTM*** 25.00 31.25 43.75 56.25 39.06 9.50 5.Large and uniform tubers

31.25 37.50 37.50 37.50 35.94 8.75

6. Drought tolerant** 18.75 37.50 25.00 37.50 29.69 7.22 7. Fit for processing*** 6.25 6.25 37.50 68.75 29.69 7.22 8. Early maturing*** 18.75 12.50 31.25 50.00 28.13 6.84 9. Shining skin*** 18.75 18.75 37.50 12.50 21.88 5.32 10. Good storability 18.75 12.50 12.50 12.50 14.06 3.42 Note: Chi-square test indicated statistically different response levels among farm categories at ** = 5%; and *** = 1% level of significance



Annex 3. Socio-economic characteristics of head of the family Category



Non- cultivators

Overall

Age (years) 52.11 52.65 51.50 44.00 51.33 48.17 45.90 48.23 Education (1-5)

2.89 3.47 3.75 4.06 3.42 3.33 1.85 2.55

Largest Primary Occupation (%)

Farming (77.78)

Farming (94.12)

Farming (87.50)

Farming (93.75)

Farming (87.95)

Farming (83.33)

Labour (80.00)

Farming (50.50) Labour (43.76)

Gender (%) 1.Male 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 95.00 98.92 2. Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.08

Labour Participation (%)

72 74 84 78 77 83 00 35

Annex 4. Net Annual Income of sampled households (INR ‘000) Category Potato growers

Particulars

Marginal Small Medium Large All Non-potato growers

Non- cultivators

Overall

Agriculture 1. Crops

(including potato)

93.239 143.876 252.64 682.792 199.004 47.844 0.000 80.852

2. Dairy 41.552 42.391 37.875 33.780 40.460 16.378 12.884 23.895 3. Potato 16.235 44.026 99.454 320.731 71.722 0.00 0.00 28.079

Salary/remittances 21.667 8.471 29.375 0.000 15.852 20.000 1.750 8.393 Other non-farm income

2.889 0.000 0.000 6.250 1.400 16.333 27.848 16.786

Total 159.346 194.737 319.890 722.822 256.717 100.555 42.483 129.927 Per capita net income

29.578 37.497 52.275 116.237 45.172 15.733 8.943 23.544

% potato contribution

In crop income 17.41 30.60 39.37 46.97 36.04 0.00 0.00 11.74 In total income 10.19 22.61 31.09 44.37 27.94 0.00 0.00 21.61



45

Annex 5. Average inventory of household assets and standard of living Category



Non- cultivators

Overall

Motorcycle (No.) 0.72 0.88 1.13 1.75 0.96 0.50 0.00 0.41 Car (No.) 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.94 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.07 Pick-Up/Utility (No.) 0.06 0.00 0.62 0.06 0.04 0.17 0.00 0.02

Cycle (No.) 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.30 0.19 House condition (1-5) 4.06 4.53 4.50 4.50 4.38 2.67 1.80 3.72 Food grain storage (%)

Tin container 72.22 86.67 93.33 100.0 87.30 100.00 63.16 82.95 Sacks 27.78 13.33 6.67 0.00 12.70 0.00 36.84 17.05

Nutritional security (%) 83.33 100.0 100.00 100.00 92.54 83.33 65.00 84.02 Water connection (%) 94.44 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.51 100.00 50.00 88.17 Electrification (%) 88.89 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.01 100.00 70.00 91.40 Sanitation (%)

Flush toilet 70.59 88.24 87.5 81.25 81.82 50.00 0.00 61.95 Temporary toilet 29.41 11.76 12.5 18.75 18.18 16.67 25.00 19.57 Open field 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 75.00 18.48

Social participation (%) 58.82 75.00 62.5 86.67 70.31 16.67 5.00 52.22 Migration rate (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.0 2.56 Per family migration (No.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.350 0.075 School type of children (%)

Government 69.23 53.33 46.15 30.77 50.00 83.33 92.86 60.81 Private 30.77 46.67 53.85 69.23 50.00 16.67 7.14 39.19

Monthly expenditure (INR) Food 3222.22 3678.57 6000.00 7107.1

4 4901.64 2833.33 1910.53 4096.51

Children education 1300.00 1507.14 2579.17 2641.67

1987.0 976.67 788.462 1673.33

Travel 1017.19 1257.14 1306.25 2866.67

1602.87 1040.00 400.00 1322.59

Bills 880.0 796.56 1298.67 2815.38

1390.25 833.33 300.00 1176.95

Total 6419.41 7239.42 11184.1 15430.9

8629.1 5683.33 3398.99 7184.52

Cooking gas (%) 77.78 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.94 66.67 0.00 72.53 TV (%) 76.47 94.12 93.75 100.00 75.76 66.67 25.00 64.13 DTH TV (%) 37.50 52.94 62.50 62.50 53.85 16.67 5.26 41.11

Landline (%) 61.11 56.25 68.75 100 71.21 16.67 0.00 52.75 Mobile (%) 83.33 88.24 87.5 100 89.55 100.0 47.37 81.52 Internet (%) 0.00 5.88 0.00 25.00 7.46 0.00 0.00 3.49 Water purifier (%) 5.56 5.88 12.5 37.5 14.93 0.00 5.26 11.96 Members using email/ family 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.30 0.21

Annex 6. Potato status in major producer states of India

Area (‘000ha) Production (‘000 tonne) Yield (tonne/ha) Sr. No. State 2000-01* 2007-08* 2000-01* 2007-08* 2000-01* 2007-08*

1. Uttar Pradesh 425.4 473.1 9466.6 10443.3 22.3 22.1 2. West Bengal 311.3 387.7 7281.7 7471.8 23.4 19.4 3. Bihar 170.0 148.7 1605.4 1204.6 09.4 08.1 4. Punjab 71.3 76.3 1424.6 1307.8 20.0 17.1 5. Total (1to4) 978.0 1085.8 19778.2 20427.5 20.2 18.8 6. Gujarat 31.9 53.3 705.9 1405.3 22.1 26.7 7. All India 1290.6 1478.9 23488.9 24822.2 18.2 16.8

Note:* = Triennium ending year. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 2009.



Annex 7

CIP, SWCA, New Delhi and CPRI, Shimla Collaborative Project Food and income security in SWCA through abiotic stress tolerant potato varieties

Diagnostic Survey for GTZ Project in Gujarat

Respondent’s name _______________________________________Phone _______________Date_____/_____/2009 District_____________ Block______________ Village________________ Investigator ________________________

1. Household information

Please provide details of household members and workers (starting with respondent)

Relation with head

Gender

Age

Education level

Primary occupation

Secondary occupation

Labour participation

1.Respondent (_________)

2.

3.

4.

CODES Gender 1. Male 2. Female

Education level 1. None 2. Primary (≤ 7 years) 3. Secondary 4. Secondary specialized 5. Higher education

Relationship with head 1. Self 2. Spouse 3. Child 4. Parent 5. Other relatives 6. Other (specify)_________

Occupation 1. Farming 2. Salaried job 3. Business 4. Home

management 5. Student 6. Other

(specify)_____

Labour participation (during production season) 1. Full time

worker 2. Part time

worker 3. Not a

worker 4. Other

(specify)__

2. Land use pattern Land holding (mention conversion factor if unit is not standard; check if Acre is standard one) (1 ha= _______

big ha/ ________)

a) Agricultural land Owned Irrigated

Un-irrigated

Rented in Irrigated

Un-irrigated

Rented out Irrigated

Un-irrigated

Self cultivated Irrigated

Un-irrigated

b) Potato cultivation Irrigated

Un-irrigated

Total

c) Un-cultivable land Owned (specify use)



47

3. Livestock owned (No.)

Cattle (cow/ bullocks) Buffaloes Goats Sheep Poultry Horse/ donkey Other (specify)________

4. Farm assets a) In the following table, please indicate the number of listed items owned.

Do you have? No. owned Type 1. Motorcycle

2. Car

3. Pick up or utility vehicle

4. Tractor

5. Bullock-plough

6. Potato planter

7. Potato digger

8. Potato graders

9. Trolley (with tractor)

10. Other (specify)______________

5. Crops grown a) What is the total area grown under each type of crop last year (2008-09) Crop Acres planted

Codes Crops grown 1. Potatoes 2. Maize 3. Cotton 4. Wheat 5. Tomatoes 6. Suran (Jamikand/ Elephant foot) 7. Groundnut 8. Cabbage

9. Onions 10. Melon/watermelon 11. Peas 12. Caster 13. Fodder 14. Other (specify)______

6. Potato plots

a) Growing potatoes for ________ years b) No. of potato crops you take in a year?___________ Number of fields on which potato was cultivated

2007-08 2008-09

Rabi Kharif/ spring Rabi Kharif/ spring

Rabi = Winter crop Kharif = Summer/ rainy season crop

(Draw a rough sketch of the plots in the farm)

(Use the box on right side)



7. Soil health status (mention if he doesn’t know)

a) Have you ever got your soil tested? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes, first __________ and latest __________ year of testing

c) Lab name _____________________________

d) Soil testing charges _______________________________

e) Elements tested ____________________________

f) Your action on test report ____________________________

g) Soil reaction? Neutral/ Acidic/ Basic (√)

h) Soil pH level (let it be farm/ location wise) _____________________

i) Soil carbon level (let it be farm/ location wise)

_____________________________________________________________________________

j) Carbon sequestration measures

_____________________________________________________________________

k) Any change in soil texture and structure (last 10 years)

_________________________________________________

l) Green manuring during last year 1=Yes 2=No Area under green manuring _____________

8. Irrigation status (overall)

a) Irrigation water source e.g. Canal (_________%); tube well (_________%) other ____________ ( _________%)

b) Irrigation type e.g. Flooding (_______%), sprinkler (________%), drip (________%), other __________(______%)

c) What is quality of your irrigation water? Good/ Bad/ Very bad (√)

d) If bad/ very bad explain why _______________________________________________________________________

e) Availability of irrigation water? Adequate/ Less/ Scarce (√)

f) Explain if you have problem(s) with irrigation water ____________________________________________________

g) Do you purchase/ sell water? 1=Yes 2=No (√). Price (with unit) if purchase/sell

_______________________

h) Irrigation investment

Irrigation system Area covered Investment Maintenance cost# Running cost# (Unit_________) Year Rs. Rs./ year Rs./ year Drip

Sprinkler

Tube well

Others (________)

# During 2008-09



49

9. Potato production

a) For each season please give details of varieties grown, area and production level of each potato plot

Year & season Plot #

Variety grown

Area (_____)

Source of seed

Seed use Production

Quantity (qt)

Price (Rs/ qt)

Seed size

Cut=1 Whole=2

Quantity (qt)

2007-08 (Main)

Second crop

2008-09 (Main)

Second crop

Varieties grown 1. K. Badshah 2. K. Lauvkar 3. K. Pukhraj 4. K. Chip-1 5. K. Chip-3 6. K. Surya 7. Lady Rosetta 8. Shepody 9. Kennebec 10. Atlantic 11. Other (___________

Seed source 1. Own 2. Neighbour (untrained) 3. Market trader 4. Commercial trained seed grower

(Gujarat) 5. Seed grower

association(specify)__________ 6. Seed potato companies 7. Govt. farms 8. Direct from Punjab or UP 9. Other (specify)_________

Seed sizes 1. Small (<20 g) 2. Medium (20-60 g; egg sized) 3. Large (>60 g) 4. Other (specify)________

b) For each potato variety grown, when the variety was grown first time and what was the seed source?

Seed replacement Variety grown

Year first grown

Seed source first

time After how many years?

What was the last seed source?

Codes Varieties grown

1 K. Badshah 2 K. Lauvkar 3 K. Pukhraj 4 K. Chip-1 5 K. Chip-3 6 K. Surya 7 Lady Rosetta 8 Shepody 9 Kennebec 10 Atlantic 11 Other (_______

Seed source 1 Own 2 Neighbour (untrained) 3 Market trader 4 Commercial seed grower/

trained farmer 5 Seed grower association

(________ 6 Chambal Agritech/ technico 7 Govt. farms 8 Other (specify)_________

c) Name the varieties you want to grow if seed is available ______________________________________________ d) What is your principal method of retaining seed for your own next year use?

1 I grow seed in a separate seed plot 1=Yes 2=No (√)

2 I select the best looking plants and select their tubers for seed (positive selection) 1=Yes 2=No (√)



3 I sort out the small tubers from the overall harvest 1=Yes 2=No (√)

4 Use proper seed plot technique 1=Yes 2=No (√)

5 Other (Specify)____________________________________________________________________________

10. Varietal preference a) Before these varieties (listed above), what old varieties did you grow and main reasons for abandoning them? Varieties abandoned Reasons for abandoning

i. ___________________________

__________________________________________________

__

ii. ____________________________

__________________________________________________

__

iii. ____________________________

__________________________________________________

__

b) Do you have problems getting high quality seeds? 1=Yes 2=No (√); If yes, what are the

problems?

i. __________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. __________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. __________________________________________________________________________________________

c) For each variety grown indicate the good and bad qualities if any, starting with the most important: Good qualities Bad qualities Variety

Most important 2nd important 3rd Important Most important 2nd important 3rd Important


Good qualities 1. Shining skin 2. Skin colour other than white 3. High yielding 4. Heat tolerant 5. Resistant to late blight 6. Early maturing 7. Long dormancy period 8. Desirable tuber size 9. Drought tolerant/ resistant 10. Easy availability of clean seed 11. Good storability (traditional and cold

storage) 12. Higher prices of produce 13. Very tasty and good texture 14. Good for processing 15. Other (specify)___________

Bad qualities 1. Dull skin colour 2. Bad tuber shape 3. Low yielding 4. Susceptible to heat 5. Susceptible to Late Blight 6. Late maturing 7. Short dormancy 8. More tubers of undesirable size 9. Drought susceptible 10. Un-availability of clean seed 11. Bad storability (traditional and

cold storage) 12. Lower prices of produce 13. Bland taste and bad texture 14. Unfit for processing 15. Other (specify)______________



51

d) What should be the priorities for potato breeding for future varieties (what traits)?

i. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

ii. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

iii. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

iv. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

e) Is drought a problem to you in potato production? 1= Yes 2= No 3=don’t know (√)

f) Is heat a problem to you in potato production? 1= Yes 2= No 3=don’t know (√)

g) Are you aware of variety differences in level of tolerance to drought/heat? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

h) If yes, rank the known varieties according to level of tolerance (one for the most tolerant) Variety name (not code) Rank

i.__________________ ___________

ii.__________________ ___________

iii__________________ ___________

iv__________________ ___________

i) Please, indicate what crops were grown before potatoes in the plots mentioned above Plot # Two years before

this year One year before this year

Comments, if any



11. Potato marketing a) Have you sold potatoes at any time in the last 2 years? 1=Yes 2=No (√). If no; why ____________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________

b) Please, give details of marketing for each of the varieties grown Year and season

Variety Sold to whom?

Quantity sold (qt)

Price/ qt (Rs)

Home consumption

(qt)

Kept for seed (qt)

Waste or fed to

animals (qt)

Who makes sell decision?

2007-08

2008-09


To whom potato was sold 1. Local market 2. Distant market 3. Middlemen’s agent at farm 4. Private trader at farm

(specify)__________ 5. Direct to retailer/ consumer 6. Other (specify)___________

Sell decision 1. Wife 2. Husband 3. Both 4. Brother 5. Father 6. Uncle 7. Others (specify)__________

12. Other marketing details

a) You did automatic grading, cleaning, packing this year? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes then what proportion of total produce? Grading (________%); Cleaning (_________%); Packing

(________%)

c) Have you got own machine for grading: 1=Yes 2=No; cleaning: 1=Yes 2=No; packing:

1=Yes 2=No (√)

d) If no, where is facility for grading _________________; cleaning __________________; packing _______________

e) Do you regularly sell to 1 or 2 same buyers? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

f) How do you get payment? Cash/ cheque/ other (_____________) (√)

g) Do you get spot or delayed payment? (√) If delayed by how much time

________________________

h) How market price information system can be improved?

_________________________________________________

i) Local market price (this date) of potatoes? Rs./qt (2007-08) _____________________ (2008-09)

__________________

j) Are you satisfied with the price you get for your produce? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

k) If no, what are the reasons for low prices? i)

____________________________________________________________ ii)

________________________________________ iii) _______________________________________________



53

l) What can be done to get right price __________________________________________________________________

13. Marketing problems

a) Did you have any marketing problems? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes, indicate the major marketing problems, starting with the most important Marketing problems Year and

season Variety Most

important 2nd important

3nd important

2007-08

2008-09

Varieties grown 1. K. Badshah 2. K. Lauvkar 3. K. Pukhraj 4. K. Chip-1 5. K. Chip-3 6. K. Surya 7. Lady Rosetta 8. Shepody 9. Kennebec 10. Atlantic

11. Other (________

Marketing problems 1. Low prices 2. Long distance to

market 3. Market intelligence 4. Market malpractices 5. Payment delays 6. Costly transportation 7. Small quantity for sale

8. Other (_____________

14. Assessment of post harvest losses

a) Harvesting method? Manual/ bullocks/ mechanical (√).

b) Post harvest losses at

i. Harvesting ___________%, reasons

___________________________

ii. Bag filling after heaps/ room storage ___________%, reasons

___________________________

iii. Sorting after cold storage ___________%, reasons

___________________________

Reasons: Cut/ Crack=C; Greening=G, Odd size=O, Rotting=R; Other (_____________________________________)

15. Contract farming

a) Are you engaged in potato contract farming (CF)? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes, since when? ____________________________________________________________________________

c) Inputs/ services provided by the company (Company ____________________________)? i) _________________

ii) ___________________________________________iii) _________________________________________

d) Mechanism of pre-fixation of potato price? ___________________________________________________________

e) Your contract farming experience. __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________



f) Details on contract farming

Company name Focus Area Potato quantity (qt) Rejection reasons Unit(___) Produced (under CF) Accepted 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08

1.

2.

3.

Focus: 1=Seed; 2=Table; 3=Processing purpose; Area=under CF potato

16. Future trading

a) Do you know what is potato future trading? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes, have you ever participated in future markets? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

c) If yes, in which year and how many times? 1st year ____________________; No. of times

_______________

d) Your experiences in future markets _________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

17. Crop insurance

a) Is potato crop insurance available in your area? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes, have you adopted it? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

c) If yes, what is insurance mechanism?

__________________________________________________________________

d) Your experiences in potato crop insurance

______________________________________________________________

18. Level of mechanisation

Activity Mechanisation level Comments, if any

Field preparation

Planting

Earthing up

Digging

Codes Mechanisation level 1=Total mechanisation 2=Partial mechanisation 3=No

mechanisation



55

19. Sources of technical knowledge on potato (MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

Source New inputs

Input prices/ availability

National/ local potato prices

Weather forecast

Policies influencing potato

Alternative occupation

1. Friends

2. Group discussions

3. Market middlemen

4. Govt. extension

worker

5. Radio/ Television

6. Newspapers/

periodicals

7. Emails/ Internet

8. Input seller

9. Farmer fair/ meetings

etc.

10. Field demonstrations

11. Private companies

12. Other

(______________)

a) Do you feel some information is still not reaching you? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

b) If yes, list the areas _____________________________________________________________________________

c) Agricultural extension and training activities during last one year Topic Who imparted

training?

1. ____________________________________________________ _____________________________

2. ____________________________________________________ _____________________________

3. ____________________________________________________ _____________________________



20. Agricultural credit

a) Have you received any agricultural credit for farm production in the last 2 years? 1=Yes 2=No (√).

b) If yes, explain in the following table (last two years): Source of finance

When given

Amount of

loan (Rs)

Loan duration

(months)

Interest rate

(%/year)

Kind of

guarantee

Purpose of loan

Source of finance 1 Cooperative society 2 Moneylender

3 Friends 4 Relatives 5 Personal loan (bank) 6 Agri-loan (bank)

7 Kisan credit card 8. Other (___________)

c) Whether loan was used for the same purpose? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

d) If no, what was done with the loan amount? __________________________________________________________

e) Facing any problem in loan repayment? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

f) If yes, explain ________________________________________________________________________________

g) Do you take fresh loan to repay old loan? 1=Yes 2=No (√)

21. Standard of living and poverty a) House condition (judge) (Score 1 to 5) ______________

Code Description of house condition Worth 1. Hut with thatch on wooden supports <Rs 20000 2. Small house with earthen walls without toilet, bathroom and kitchen <Rs 50000 3. House with kitchen but without toilet <Rs 1lakh 4. Medium sized cemented, multi-room house with kitchen and toilet <Rs 5 lakh 5. Big cemented, multi-room house with kitchen, toilet and open space around ≥ Rs 5 lakh

b) Food grain storage system ___________________________________________________________________

c) Nutritional security (judge) 1=Yes 2=No (√)

d) Individual water connection 1=Yes 2=No (√);

e) House electrification 1=Yes 2=No (√)

f) Sanitation: Flush toilet/ temporary toilet/ open field (√)

g) TV 1=Yes 2=No (√)

h) Social participation at least one organisation 1=Yes 2=No (√)

i) Migration to outside the village only for seeking labour work 1=Yes 2=No (√)

j) How many members migrated? 2007-08_________________ 2008-09_________________

k) School type of children (e.g. govt./private/DAV/Central/Missionary, judge standard)

___________________________________

l) Monthly expenditure Rs. Food ___________ Children edu _____________ Travel(petrol/ fare not edu)

____________ Periodical Bills (name & amount e.g. newspaper, telephone, electric, water, TV)

____________________________________



57

m) Cooking gas (LPG) use 1=Yes 2=No (√);

n) DTH TV 1=Yes 2=No (√)

o) Telephone (landline) 1=Yes 2=No (√);

p) Mobile (≥ one) 1=Yes 2=No (√)

q) Internet at home 1=Yes 2=No (√);

r) Home water purifier 1=Yes 2=No (√)

s) Family members using email (No.) _________________________

22. Income and development indicators

How much income did you or anyone in your household earned over the past 12 months?

Source Gross Income or Value (Rs) 1 Total crop sales (potato and other crops)

2 Sales of animals or animal products

3 Other farm income (__________________)

4 Salaries, gifts and remittances

5 Other non-farm income (___________________)

23. Farmers’ perception on potential yield of potato

Do you think your potato yield can further increase 1=Yes 2=No (√)

If yes, what are the factors that can increase yield

Factor 1=Yes; 2=No Importance (1 (low) to 5 (high))

1. Sufficient irrigation water

2. Soil reclamation (in case alkaline/saline or too acidic)

3. High yielding potato varieties

4. Water saving potato production technology

5. Drought resistant/ tolerant potato varieties

6. Heat tolerant potato varieties

7. Higher doses of fertilizers

8. Proper weed control

9. Right insect/ pest control

10. Right late blight management

11. Right control of other diseases

12. Right quality and timely availability of pesticides

13. Right quality and timely availability of fertilisers

14. Availability of adequate funds

15. Cheaper machinery

16. Low prices of inputs

17. Improvement in agricultural extension services

18. Other (__________________)

Close the interview with THANKS to the respondent

International Potato CenterApartado 1558 Lima 12, Perú • Tel 51 1 349 6017 • Fax 51 1 349 5326 • email [email protected]

CIP’s MissionThe International Potato Center (CIP) works with partners to achieve food securityand well-being and gender equity for poor people in root and tuber farming andfood systems in the developing world. We do this through research and innovationin science, technology and capacity strengthening.

CIP’s VisionOur vision is roots and tubers improving the lives of the poor.

CIP is supported by a group of governments, private foundations, and internationaland regional organizations known as the Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research (CGIAR).www.cgiar.org

Documents

Assessing potato farmers' perceptions on abiotic stresses