Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Impact study of the adoption ofnew varieties of sweetpotato
released by INIA on theCentral Coast of Peru:
The case of Cañete Valley
C. Fonseca1, R. Zuger2, T. Walker3 and J. Molina4
International Potato Center (CIP)Lima, Peru
2003
1 Assistant Researcher, Social Sciences Department, CIP.2 Associate Investigator, Social Sciences Department, CIP.3 Leader of the project Sweetpotato Improvement and Virus Control, CIP.4 Co-leader of Sweetpotato Program, INIA.
2
Correct citation:Impact study of the adoption of new varieties of sweetpotato released by INIA on the Central Coast of Peru: The caseof the Cañete Valley. C. Fonseca, R. Zuger, T. Walker, and J. Molina. International Potato Center (CIP), Lima. 2003.23 pp.
© International Potato Center (CIP), 2003
CIP publications contribute important development information to the public arena. Readers are encouraged to quoteor reproduce material from them in their own publications. As copyright holder CIP requests acknowledgement, and acopy of the publication where the citation or material appears. Please send this to the Communication and PublicAwareness Department at the address below.
International Potato Center (CIP)Apartado 1558Lima 12, Peru
ISBN 929060223-6Press run: 250September 2003
Cover design: Nini Fernandez-ConchaLayout: Alfredo Puccini B.Printed in Peru by Comercial Grafica Sucre
3
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................. 5
The contribution made by sweetpotato research ......................................... 6
Sweetpotato in Cañete Valley ....................................................................... 7
A brief history of sweetpotato varieties ........................................................ 8
New sweetpotato varieties released by INIA ............................................... 9
Adoption of new varieties........................................................................... 11
Economic evaluation .................................................................................. 13 Project benefits ........................................................................................... 14 Project costs ............................................................................................... 15 Returns on the project ............................................................................... 15 Costs and benefits including new clone 199062.1 ................................... 15 Sensitivity analysis ................................................................................... 17
Conclusions ................................................................................................ 19
Bibliography................................................................................................ 20
Annexes ....................................................................................................... 21
Assumptions ............................................................................................... 23
4
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are due to the researchers at the International Potato Center(CIP) - Dr. Zhang Dapeng, Dr. Thomas Walker, Daniel Reynoso, Dr. LuisSalazar and Segundo Fuentes - who provided valuable support, throughcollaborative programs, to the Potato and Sweetpotato Program of InstitutoNacional de Investigación Agrícola (INIA) in the generation of new varietiesof sweetpotato and the establishment of a quality seed production program.Likewise, thanks are due to Juan Pablo Molina, who conscientiouslyundertook the leadership of the sweetpotato sub-program of INIA, whichmade important advances in the selection and diffusion of new varieties,mainly in the valleys of Cañete and Huaral. Likewise, Cesar Paredes,Director of the INIA Donoso Extension Station (Huaral) deserves specialrecognition, as do Luis Chumbiauca and Juan Vilchez of the TechnologyTransference Unit of the INIA Substation, who placed all their facilities atthe disposal of the research and extension work undertaken by the Potatoand Sweetpotato Program. The present study was financed by the RegionalFund for Agricultural Technology (FONTAGRO) with funds from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) administered by the Inter-AmericanInstitute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). Research was developedunder the agreement made between the International Potato Center (CIP)and the IICA for the execution of the project "Development of SweetpotatoProducts in Latin America" during the period July 2000 to June 2003.
5
Introduction
The sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) is a typical warm valley crop. In Peru it issown in the coastal valleys (at sea level), and in inter-Andean valleys and inthe jungle (between 500 and 2000 meters above sea level). In inter-Andeanvalleys, pre-Incan remains have been found of the fleshy roots of this plant,indicating that sweetpotato has been very important in Peru since thosetimes.
The sweetpotato is known to play an important role in feeding bothrural and urban populations; its tuberous roots are in demand by low-income families because of their low cost and agreeable flavor, and for theircontribution against nutritional deficit. They provide between 113 and 123calories and between 1.3 and 1.8 g of protein per 100 g, and also make animportant contribution in terms of beta-carotene (0.048–0.084 mg/100 g). Inaddition, sweetpotato is a source of fresh fodder for livestock in the settledmarginal zones of the coastal valleys.
The Programa Nacional de Investigacion en Papa y Camote (PNPYC)[National Research Program for Potato and Sweetpotato] of the InstitutoNacional de Investigación Agraría (INIA) [National Institute of AgriculturalResearch] reinitiated research on sweetpotato in 1991, through collaborativeprojects with the International Potato Center (known by its Spanishacronym, CIP) in Cañete Valley and, later, in Huaral Valley, both in theDepartment of Lima. One of the program’s most important achievements hasbeen the release of four sweetpotato varieties: Cañetano INIA, Imperial INIA,INA-100 INIA and INIA 306-Huambachero.
These new varieties have gradually replaced the Jonathan variety (ayellow type), one of the varieties that achieved wide dispersal in the valleysof Lima in the 1980s and 1990s. Similarly, new varieties have replacedvarieties of the purple type, both native varieties (such as Trujillano) andimproved varieties (such as Milagroso).
The dynamics of these new varieties in the valleys of Lima need to beevaluated and documented, in order to demonstrate the economic impact ofthis new technology. Therefore, an impact study was proposed for CañeteValley, which is considered to be the valley producing the highest levels ofsweetpotato nationally.
6
The contribution made by sweetpotato research
The productivity of sweetpotato in the coastal valleys, especially in CañeteValley, has increased in the last decade, from an average of 16 t/ha in 1989to 22 t/ha in 1999. This increase is the result of research which has workedto generate new varieties which are more productive and of a higher quality.
However, in 1997, the productivity of sweetpotato was seriouslyaffected by abrupt climatic changes which occurred as a result of thephenomenon known as El Niño (the temperature rose by more than 4°C). Ahigh incidence of pests such as whitefly (Bemisia sp.) and aphids (Aphis sp.)favored the presence of the virus complex SPVD5 , which considerablyaffected productivity. The majority of varieties were seriously affected,because of their high susceptibility to the complex: Jonathan and Cañetanowere among the few varieties that resisted, but with yields of less than 10 t/ha. Moreover, inadequate management of seed allowed the virus complex topropagate rapidly throughout the entire valley6 .
In this context, the release of the new varieties INA-100 (INA-100 INIA)and Huambachero (INIA 306-Huambachero), the products of a joint effort byCIP and INIA, turned out to be good news for farmers. These varietiessatisfied the farmers’ expectations of quality and productivity, and werequickly adopted in the ensuing years; consequently, the two varietiescurrently have an important market presence.
The development of an inter-institutional program (INIA, CIP andCOSAGRA-Cañete7) for sweetpotato seed contributed to the re-establishmentof the crop in the valley. The program emphasized the use of seed free ofpathogens (especially virus pathogens) and the diffusion ofrecommendations for appropriate seed management.
Because of the advances obtained with these two varieties, and giventhe importance of the sweetpotato crop in the Cañete Valley, it was decided
5 The virus complex SPVD is made up of two viruses, sweetpotato feathery mottle virus (SPFMV) andsweetpotato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV). It causes the most important of the diseases that affectsweetpotato, due to its distribution worldwide and the considerable drop it causes in yields of the tuberousroots.
6 Most of the farmers were unaware of the seriousness of the problem or of the mechanisms of diffusionwhich spread the virus complex. They would extract cuttings from infected fields which they would thenimmediately plant in a new field without first disinfecting them.
7 Comité de Sanidad Agraria del Valle de Cañete (Committee for Agricultural Sanitation of Cañete).
7
to carry out an economic impact study with the aim of evaluating theeconomic achievements of research and extension undertaken in the contextof the generation of new varieties of sweetpotato.
Sweetpotato in Cañete Valley
Cañete Valley contains approximately 20,000 hectares of cultivated land,and is one of the privileged valleys in so far as it has a good water supply,soils of a good agricultural quality and crops which reflect a high degree oftechnological development, because the valley is located near to the city ofLima which is, moreover, the largest market in the country.
Cañete Valley is located in Agroecological Zone II, on the subtropicalcoast, and contains three smaller agroecological zones of production: themarginal zone to the east, the central zone, and the salt zone to the west(Achata et al., 1990). The three zones are differentiated by soil type. The bestsoils are located in the central zone, which comprises more than 50% of thevalley.
Sweetpotato is a commercially important crop in Cañete Valley, beingplaced after cotton and maize, and, occasionally, potato8. Each year between
INIA and CIP sweetpotato researchers evaluating new varieties.
8
5,000 and 7,000 ha of sweetpotato are planted in the valley, primarily bysmall producers (parceleros) who make up 75% of the total number offarmers in the valley and occupy approximately 40% of the area of thevalley9. Sweetpotato is considered to be the lowest risk crop because itsproduction costs are low in comparison with other crops: production costsare approximately US$600 per hectare, or US$30 per metric ton, as yields arearound 20 t/ha. This is very important if we consider that the amount ofagricultural credit provided to small producers is insufficient.
Another advantage associated with sweetpotato is that it is a dualpurpose crop. Besides its tuberous root, the foliage can be used and isgathering importance, especially for livestock production, as it has a proteincontent similar to that of alfalfa (around 16%). Livestock breeders affirm thatit stimulates the highest level of milk production in cows. These advantageshave caused livestock production in the Cañete Valley to develop, givingrise in recent years to livestock breeding units in the marginal zones of thevalley, which now has a cattle population of approximately 25,000 head10.In addition, livestock breeding is an important source of income for theimmigrant population from the highlands, which has been much affected bythe political problems of the recent decade.
A brief history of sweetpotato varieties
A large part of the national collection of genotypes was donated by Romulodel Carpio Burga, and consists of 289 native varieties, 49 foreign entries, 137transformed entries, and 660 advanced clones. Carpio mentions, in hiswritings, that nature and the passage of time caused the formation of thenative varieties; some of these mutated and recombined through freepollination while, later, new varieties were created through geneticimprovement.
The old varieties sown the most and described by Carpio (1981), areParamonguino Mejorado, Paramutay, Mamala, Chancleta, Tresmesino (orJapones), Trujillano, Camote Papa, Huayro, Zapallo Yema de Huevo, andDos en Uno. In 1976, Eulogio Tito Delgado noted that the following varieties
8 The predominant crop in Cañete is cotton, which covers about 40% of the total area of the valley,followed by maize, sweetpotato and potato, each of which occupies an area of 15-20% of the valley.
9 Ministerio de Agricultura-Agencia Agraria Cañete: Estructura de la propiedad de la tierra en el Valle deCañete.
10 Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria (SENSA), Cañete, J. Quiroz.
9
were sown on the central coast: Japonés Tres Mesino, Buen Pobre, SupanoNegro Huanca, Mamala, Nemañete, and Chilingano Lanceolado.
The sweetpotato production system described by Achata et al. (1990)includes yellow type varieties Nemañete, Paramonguino Mejorado, andJonathan, and improved purple type varieties Trujillano Mejorado,Canchari, and Maria Angola.
Until 1997, in Cañete, the following traditional varieties predominated:Morado Trujillano, Morado Milagroso, Jonathan, Futuro, and Milagroso.However, as a result of the El Niño phenomenon and the occurrence of theSPVD virus complex which resulted, the majority of these varieties stoppedbeing cultivated. Yields were significantly reduced (from 20 to 6 t/ha) andseed cuttings were severely affected, especially those taken from theMilagroso variety. The Jonathan variety, for lack of a replacement, continuedto be planted until 2000, the year in which a new variety (INA-100), also ayellow type, was adopted by farmers. Similarly, at the end of the same year,a new variety of the purple type (Huambachero) rapidly covered the valley,efficiently replacing the Milagroso variety.
New sweetpotato varieties released by INIA
In order to obtain new varieties of sweetpotato, trials were carried out indifferent environments of the country’s north and central coasts. These trialsapplied participative research, which involved participant farmers in theevaluation of genetic material from the first stages of selection. The principalsources of genetic material were CIP’s genetic improvement program and thecollection of native material by the INIA program in the valleys of thedepartment of Lima.
The sweetpotato trials were carried out with the aim of identifyinggenotypes superior to the traditional varieties available for freshconsumption (yellow and purple types) while trying to respond to thepreferences for characteristics expressed by farmers, merchants, andconsumers, and incorporating genotypes with good agronomiccharacteristics, such as a high yield potential, precocity, resistance tonematodes, good commercial qualities (uniformity of shape and size andgood color) and good culinary qualities (appearance and flavor).
CAÑETANO-INIA: A yellow sweetpotato, of the apichu (“sweet”) typewith a light orange skin and flesh, round tuberous roots, and a four-month
10
vegetative period. The variety was assigned the identification number CIP1880061.1 and the experimental code SR88.050. It was selected for the CIPgenetic improvement program in San Ramón in 1988, and comes fromsexual seed (derived from cross-pollination) which was collected from anexperimental field (at La Yarada) belonging to the National University ofTacna. The female progenitor is the native variety Juan Sanchez, collected inChilca in 1971 and conserved in the CIP germplasm collection under thecode RCB IN-217.
Cañetano-INIA was released in 1994, and was grown until 1998. Itpresented cracking in the tuberous roots due to susceptibility to nematodes.
IMPERIAL-INIA: A k´umara (“not sweet”) type of sweetpotato, with acream-colored skin and flesh, a dry matter content of 28–30%, and a starchcontent of 19–21%. The variety is used for industrial and food-processingactivities, and is suitable for starch production. It has a vegetative period offive months and is resistant to nematodes. In 1992 this new sweetpotatovariety was delivered to INIA’s National Potato and Sweetpotato Programby the International Potato Center’s Department of Genetics and CropImprovement, and was evaluated in different environments on the northand the central coasts of Peru. Identified by CIP number 189006.4, itsexperimental code is YM89.208. It was selected in Yurimaguas from a seedlot (code USSC-5) which originated from cross-pollination.
This variety was released in 1994, especially for use in starchproduction. A private company planted up to 20 ha in 1997. However, it didnot prosper because of high production costs and competition from lowerpriced imported starch.
INA-100 INIA: A yellow apichu type of sweetpotato, the skin and fleshof which are an intense orange. It has a short vegetative period (fourmonths), a dry matter content of 22–24%, and is susceptible to nematodeattacks. Its female progenitor is the Jewel variety, which was a leader in theUnited States for more than 20 years. As a male progenitor, a mix of pollenfrom the principal Peruvian and foreign varieties was used. This pollencross was effected in the CIP Experimental Station at San Ramon (Junin) in1992. The progeny (500 genotypes) of this cross were evaluated and selectedfor use in INIA’s National Potato and Sweetpotato Research Program. Fromthis population the present genotype was selected and identified using thecode 1498.50. Its CIP number is 102033.5.
This variety was generated with the aim of substituting it for theJonathan variety, the yields of which had diminished. Expansion of the area
11
growing this variety began in 1994, with the planting of 2 hectares.Following its release in 1997, 80 hectares were planted. By 2001 it covered50% of the cultivated area of Cañete (2,500 ha). However, this variety hasdemonstrated degenerative characteristics, because of its susceptibility toviruses and nematodes, which have led to diminishing yields.
INIA 306-HUAMBACHERO: A purple type of sweetpotato, with adark purple skin and orange flesh, a dry matter content of 30–32%, and ashort vegetative period (four to five months). It is resistant to nematodeattacks. The Huambachero variety was selected from native genetic materialcollected in 1996 in the Huacho Valley. From 1996 this cultivar wasevaluated in different places, in order to assess its behavior, adaptation, andyield in comparison with traditional varieties which were more widelydistributed and cultivated. The results obtained show that theHuambachero variety gives 20% higher yields than traditional varieties.
This variety was planted on 10 ha in 1998. This area had rapidlyincreased, to 220 ha, by the date of its release in 2001.
Clone 199062.1: A yellow, apichu type of sweetpotato with an orangeskin and a light orange flesh, a five-month vegetative period, and a 32% drymatter content (which facilitates its transportation to distant markets). It issuitable both for consumption when fresh and for processing (flour andstarch production). Its yield of tuberous roots is between 30 and 35 t/ha,and it is resistant to nematode attacks. This clone was selected throughobservation and in advanced trials carried out in the Chincha, Cañete, andHuaral Valleys, and from crosses performed by the Department of Geneticsand Crop Improvement of CIP.
Adoption of new varieties
The majority of smallholder farmers interviewed considered sweetpotato tobe the second most important crop, after cotton, mostly because of its lowproduction costs and the greater income and yield capacity obtained fromits cultivation.
Based on follow-up data from Cañete Valley for May 2002,11 it ispossible to affirm that two varieties of sweetpotato are sown on 90% of the
11 In order to conduct a follow-up study of the area sown with sweetpotato by variety, 30% of the sown areawas sampled. In tandem with this, 29 farmers were interviewed from the districts of San Luis, Imperial, SanVicente, and Quilmana.
12
total area of the valley on which sweetpotato is cultivated: Huambachero(53%) and INA-100 (38%). The Jonathan variety occupies 9% of the total areacultivated with sweetpotato (Figure 1).
12 Achata et al. (1990).
Figure 1. Results of follow-up on the area planted with sweetpotato in Cañete Valley in May2002.
Huambachero 52.65% INA-100
38.16%
Milagroso 0.46%
Jonathan 8.73%
Farmers who were interviewed as part of this follow-up study declaredthat the new varieties had various advantages, such as their yield oftuberous roots (which largely surpassed those of traditional varieties suchas Jonathan). They obtained yields of between 25 and 30 t/ha with one orother of the two varieties. They also remarked on the good commercialquality of two varieties: INA-100 and Huambachero.
INA-100 was remarked upon because of the color of its skin and flesh(an intense orange). They also pointed out that it is a good replacement forthe Jonathan variety. Huambachero was valued for its purple skin color andorange flesh, which would allow it to replace the purple Milagroso. Anotheradvantage recognized was the quantity and good quality of the foliageprovided (mainly by Huambachero) for animal feed. Farmers pointed outthat it is possible to obtain the same tonnage (48 t/ha) of green foliage fromeither variety.
Farmers’ production costs for sweetpotato are between US$500 andUS$700 per hectare. In agreement with the findings of previous studies onsweetpotato12 , the greatest amount was invested in labor (40% of the totalproduction cost), as labor demands are great, especially for sowing.Machinery and fertilizers each accounted for 20% of total production costs,and seed and pesticides each accounted for 10%.
13
The two new varieties, INIA-100 and Huambachero, have been foundto “fit” farmers’ expectations. However, the farmers did point outdisadvantages, such as susceptibility to nematodes, to the virus complexSPVD, and to chacarero (Bothinus sp.).
Economic evaluation
The partial budget method was used to estimate the net benefits of theproject, i.e. those resulting from the substitution of traditional varieties withnew ones (for example, the substitution of Jonathan with INA-100 andMilagroso with Huambachero). Two basic assumptions were proposed: (1)production costs are constant for all varieties, and (2) yield (t/ha) varies as afunction of the variety. In this sense, the additional benefit was determinedby the increase in yield that occurred upon the substitution of a new varietyfor the traditional variety, using the average field price. Being conservative,so that the impact was not overestimated, only 50% of the additional yieldobtained in the fields of reference was considered for further calculation.The area over which the new varieties were adopted was estimated on thebasis of the INIA Sweetpotato Program records and based on the results ofthe May 2002 follow-up study. From the follow-up study, it was concludedthat the two new varieties occupy 90% of the area planted with sweetpotatoin the Cañete Valley, for which, on the basis of annual averages (10 years), amaximum area of 5000 ha has been determined.
Research program costs are included by year, in order to calculateannual net benefits. Finally, the NPV (net present value) was calculatedusing a discount rate of 20%, and also the IRR (internal rate of return).
Huambachero and INA-100.
14
Experience indicates that it takes 15-20 years for one variety to bereplaced by another. In this sense, in order to be able to compare the twovarieties released (three if we include the clone 199062.1) and to adequatelyconsider the period of time, an evaluation of a period of 29 years was applied.
Project benefits
The net additional benefit resulting from the replacement of the Jonathanvariety with variety INA-100 was $579.00 per hectare (Table 1).
The net additional benefit derived from replacing either Milagroso orLimeño Morado (purple varieties) with the Huambachero variety was foundto be US$328 per hectare (Table 2).
Table 1. Estimated net benefit derived from replacing the Jonathan variety with variety INA-100.
Source: Based on the Economic Validation Document produced by INIA (Molina, 1997).
Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4
Yield (t/ha)Jonathanand others(controls)
14.7512.0437.516
Yield(t/ha)varietyINI-100
29.229.84338.6Average
Differencein yield(t/ha)
14.4517.765.522.615.0775
Conservativeassumption:50% of realadditionalyield
7.5
Selling pricein fieldper tonne2001S/.
270
Additionalbenefitper hectare(US$)
579
Table 2. Estimated net benefit derived from replacing either Milagroso or Limeño Morado withHuambachero.
Source: Based on the Economic Validation Report Document of Huambachero, INIA (Molina, 2001).
Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4
Yield (t/ha)purpleLimeño andMilagroso
2529.536.7525.3
Yield (t/ha)Huambacherovariety
40374330.7Average
Differencein yield(t/ha)
157.56.255.48.5375
Conservativeassumption:50% of realadditionalyield
4.25
Sellingpricein fieldper tonne2001S/.
270
Additionalbenefitperhectare(US$)
328
15
Project costs
Costs for developing the varieties began in 1991 and ended after the releaseof the Huambachero variety, assuming that this was the end of theprogram's activities.
However, the production and extension costs associated with qualityseed continue, owing to the need to continue activities to strengthen the seedproduction system that provides quality seed to producers and maintainssustained production volumes.
Total costs for the development of the variety INA 100 were more thanUS$35,000 a year. Seventy percent of this cost has been assumed by INIAand 30% by CIP.
Returns on the project
Net additional benefits were found to be negative for the first seven years.However, as of 1997, positive net benefits were recorded and reached a highlevel in 2002. In that year, based on a follow-up study of the area plantedwith sweetpotato in the Cañete Valley, it was estimated that 90% wascovered with the improved varieties INA-100 and Huambachero.
The IRR on the investment of resources to obtain the sweetpotatovarieties INA-100 and Huambachero was found to be 44%. This value ishigh, and confirms that investing in research on varieties is efficient. Netbenefits obtained reach a value in excess of one million dollars(US$1,300,000), bearing in mind the assumptions posited in a veryconservative way. Nevertheless the NPV is considerable but not excessive,because the area of adoption is limited (Table 3).
Costs and benefits including new clone 199062.1
The results of evaluations of advanced trials of clones in distinctenvironments give us the partial budget for clone 199062.1 (Table 4).
At present the clone is sown on 2 hectares in the Cañete and HuaralValleys in Lima.
The yield of INA-100 is already decreasing as a result of reduced seedquality (through virus contamination) and increased susceptibility tonematodes. That is why the success of clone 199062.1 in the Cañete Valleyin the near future is almost certain.
16
Table 3. Returns on research for varieties INA 100-INIA and Huambachero INIA.
In making these calculations, the following were assumed:• That a maximum area of 5000 ha of sweetpotato was being cultivated in the Cañete Valley.• That the varieties improved by INIA/CIP cover an area of approximately 90% of the valley (according to the
follow-up study which was conducted on the varieties and which ended in June 2002).• That the net benefit obtained from variety INA-100 was US$579.00/ha from 1994 until 1999. From then
on, a decrease in benefit of US$200 is estimated to have occurred until 2002, due to a decrease in seedquality. As of 2003 onwards, it is estimated that less benefit will be derived from this variety (US$100/ ha) dueto the tuberous roots' tendency to crack because of increased susceptibility to nematodes.
• That in the case of variety Huambachero the net benefit obtained by the change in variety was and will beUS$328/ ha from 1998 to 2008. From then until 2019, limited susceptibility to nematodes is assumed, anda reduction in benefits of US$229 is assumed.
• When determining the returns of the project, benefits which have not been considered include the use of thefoliage for animal feed. Oral communications indicate that the foliage preferred is that produced by thepurple varieties.
Year Net
benefit /ha
Area Total benefit
Net benefit
/ha Area Total
benefit Total area
Total benefit all varieties
Project costs Total costs
Net added value
INA100 Huambachero INIA
& CIP Research
Extension Seed
1991 0 - 0.0 0 0 0.0 - 35,000 0 0 35,000 (35,000)
1992 0 - 0.0 0 0 0.0 - 35,000 0 0 35,000 (35,000)
1993 0 - 0.0 0 0 0.0 - 35,000 0 500 35,500 (35,500)
1994 579.00 2 1158.0 0 0 0.0 2 1,158 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 (36,842)
1995 579.00 8 4632.0 0 0 0.0 8 4,632 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 (33,368)
1996 579.00 20 11580.0 0 0 0.0 20 11,580 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 (26,420)
1997 579.00 80 46320.0 0 0 0.0 80 46,320 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 8,320
1998 579.00 200 115800.0 328.0 1 328.0 201 116,128 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 78,128
1999 579.00 450 260550.0 328.0 10 3280.0 460 263,830 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 225,830
2000 200.00 1000 200000.0 328.0 80 26240.0 1080 226,240 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 188,240
2001 200.00 2500 500000.0 328.0 220 72160.0 2720 572,160 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 534,160
2002 200.00 2000 400000.0 328.0 2500 820000.0 4500 1,220,000 35,000 2000 1000 38,000 1,182,000
2003 100.00 1500 150000.0 328.0 2600 852800.0 4100 1,002,800 1000 3000 4,000 998,800
2004 100.00 1500 150000.0 328.0 2700 885600.0 4200 1,035,600 1000 3000 4,000 1,031,600
2005 100.00 1500 150000.0 328.0 2700 885600.0 4200 1,035,600 1000 3000 4,000 1,031,600
2006 100.00 1200 120000.0 328.0 2900 951200.0 4100 1,071,200 1000 3000 4,000 1,067,200
2007 100.00 1200 120000.0 328.0 2900 951200.0 4100 1,071,200 1000 3000 4,000 1,067,200
2008 100.00 1200 120000.0 328.0 2900 951200.0 4100 1,071,200 1000 3000 4,000 1,067,200
2009 100.00 1200 120000.0 229.0 2900 664100.0 4100 784,100 1000 3000 4,000 780,100
2010 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2011 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2012 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2013 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2014 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2015 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2016 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2017 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2018 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
2019 100.00 900 90000.0 229.0 3000 687000.0 3900 777,000 1000 3000 4,000 773,000
IRR: 44%
NPV: $1,308,606.99
17
Furthermore, based on farmers' impressions of the new clone 199062.1(besides the fact that it is resistant to nematodes), a rapid increase in theareas planted with this clone is a possibility: it may even replace INA-100within a short time.
In this case, the IRR was found to be 45%: the NPV of the program wasUS$1,547,126.99 at a 20% discount rate (see Annex 1).
Sensitivity analysis
Taking into consideration the fact that 90% of the sweetpotato area of theCañete Valley (about 4,500 ha) is covered by the two new varieties selectedthrough the work of the Sweetpotato Program, with the support of CIP, andthat a another new variety (clone 199062.1) will be added in the near future,we may state that the area planted with these new varieties will assuredlyincrease further. However, the behavior of the varieties, as well as area-specific factors, is erratic, and is influenced by various factors, mainly by themarket, seasonality, availability of seed and perhaps by national andinternational politics, changes in which may suddenly facilitate thepossibility of growing alternative crops.
Of the changes that could significantly affect the results of thisprogram, that most likely to occur is a change in the area cultivated usingsweetpotato. The change from one variety to another will not alter much, aspractically all the good material is derived from the same program (INIA/CIP).
Table 4. Estimated net benefits from the change from variety INA 100-INIA to clone 199062.1.
Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3
Yield(t/ha)controls
313217.6
Yield (t/ha)variety:clone199062.1
494125.7Average
Yielddifference(t/ha)
1898.111.7
Conservativeassumption:50% of realadditionalyield
5.9
Selling pricein fieldper tonne2001S/.
270
Addedbenefitper hectare(US$)
455
Source: Based on internal technical report of INIA (Molina, 2002).
18
The trend of the area planted to sweetpotato is not clear, due to itserratic behavior. Statistics from the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture(MINAG) show constant ups and downs with regard to the area planted. Itis still unreliable to interpret the linear tendency owing to great annualdifferences and during 15 years, but it seems to confirm that the areacultivated with sweetpotato is continuing to grow (Figure 2).
When undertaking the sensitivity analysis, the following assumptionwas made: In the following years, the area of the Cañete Valley planted withsweetpotato could gradually be turned over to the cultivation of cotton, withthe support of a government policy providing incentives to the textileindustry and to the production of products manufactured from cotton, andby making use of the benefits provided by the ATPA DEA (the AndeanTrade Promotion Authority tied to drug eradication; a law givingpreferential tariffs) conceded by the United States of America and extendedtill 2006.
In the future, it may be much more productive, in terms of income, tocultivate cotton rather than sweetpotato on the coast-so much so that thesize of the area on which sweetpotato is grown in the department of Limacould fall to less than 3,000 ha. However, the results of the sensitivityanalysis point to the Sweetpotato Program having a positive income-yieldcapacity: even in a case in which the area planted with sweetpotatodiminishes to 1,000 ha, the income-yield capacity of the project would be
Figure 2. Evolution of sweetpotato-growing area (ha) in the Department of Lima, 1985-1999.
Evolucion del área (ha) de camote en el departamento de Lima
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Año 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: Statistics obtained from the Dirección General de Información Agraria - Ministerio de Agricultura[General Directorship of Agricultural Information - Ministry of Agriculture].
Year
19
guaranteed. This would result in an IRR of 38% and a NPV of 0.7 milliondollars (see Annex 2).
Conclusions
Owing to the fact that it supplies the market generated by the capital city, thesweetpotato production system of the Cañete Valley is a viable commercialactivity. Among other aspects, it maintains the productive development ofdairy herding. In this context, the contribution made by the collaborativework undertaken by INIA and CIP has been of great importance in terms ofthe generation of new varieties and, consequently, the persistence of theproduction of sweetpotato in both the Cañete Valley and other Peruviancoastal valleys.
Until the 1990s, many varieties of sweetpotato had been planted.However, due to disease, as well as other factors, the great majority of thesevarieties were lost. For that reason, at present 90% of the area cultivatedwithin the Cañete Valley is planted with two varieties released by INIA. It is,therefore, of the utmost importance that research on sweetpotato continues,allowing the generation of new varieties which will maintain thesweetpotato crop on the coast of this country.
Considering the cautious and conservative assumptions in this study,including the sensitivity analyses, it is confirmed that the SweetpotatoProgram definitely constitutes a system which has a high income-producingcapacity and which generates good added value in comparison with theextremely modest costs it entails. Practically no external factor can affect, inany substantial way, the high return on investment.
The program's net added value is not however excessive, owing to therelatively small area. This evaluation took into consideration only theimpacts on the Cañete Valley; however, it is estimated that the additionalarea cultivated with the new varieties in other zones amounts to 2,500 ha,situated in Norte Chico (Huaral, Huacho, and Barranca) and on the northcoast (Ancash, Trujillo and Chiclayo). Research results are also importantfor these sweetpotato production zones and considerably increase the netpresent value of the research program.
This document has not taken into consideration the additionalbeneficial effects had upon the livestock sector, as a result of sweetpotatoresearch, which allowed for the development of livestock production inmarginal zones of the valley. Determination of the volume of and role playedby green foliage will require a special study.
20
Bibliography
Achata, A., Fano, H., Goyas, H., Chiang, O. and Andrade, M., 1990. Elcamote (batata) en el sistema alimentario del Perú. El caso del Valle deCañete. CIP, Lima, Peru. 63 p.
Carpio, R. del., 1981. Utilización de los recursos genéticos de la batata en elPerú. Informe Técnico. 18 p.
Molina, J., 1997. Documento de validación económica del INIA, año 1997.Programa de papa y camote. INIA, Lima, Peru. 34 p.
Molina, J., 2001. Documento de informe de validación técnica delHuambachero. INIA, Lima, Peru. 43 p.
Molina, J., 2002. Documento de informe de validación técnica del INIA, año2002 sobre el clon de camote 199062.1. INIA, Lima, Peru. 12 p.
Ministerio de Agricultura, 2002. Stadísticas del cultivo del camote en Lima.Estadísticas de la Dirección General de Información Agraria.http://www.minag.gob.pe
21
Annexes
Annex 1. Returns on research on use of new varieties including clone 199062.1 for 4,700 ha.
IN
A100
Hu
amba
cher
o
clo
n199
062.1
Ca
ñete
50
00 h
a
INIA
& C
IP
rese
arch
Ex
tensio
n Se
ed
1991
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.00
35
,000
0 0
3
5,000
(3
5,00
0)
1992
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.00
35
,000
0 0
3
5,000
(3
5,00
0)
1993
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.00
35
,000
0 50
0
35,5
00
(35,
500)
1994
57
9.00
2 11
58.0
0
0.0
0
0.02
1,158
35
,000
2000
10
00
3
8,000
(3
6,84
2)
1995
57
9.00
8 46
32.0
0
0.0
0
0.08
4,632
35
,000
2000
10
00
3
8,000
(3
3,36
8)
1996
57
9.00
20
1158
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.020
11,5
80
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38,0
00
(26,
420)
1997
57
9.00
80
4632
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.080
46,3
20
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38,0
00
8
,320
1998
57
9.00
200
1158
00.0
328.0
1
328.0
0 0.0
201
116
,128
35
,000
2000
10
00
3
8,000
78,1
28
1999
57
9.00
450
2605
50.0
328.0
10
32
80.0
0
0.046
0
2
63,8
30
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38,0
00
225
,830
2000
20
0.00
1000
20
0000
.0 32
8.0
80
2624
0.0
0
0.010
80
226
,240
35
,000
2000
10
00
3
8,000
1
88,2
40
2001
20
0.00
2500
50
0000
.0 32
8.0
220
7216
0.0
0
0.027
20
572
,160
35
,000
2000
10
00
3
8,000
5
34,1
60
2002
20
0.00
2000
40
0000
.0 32
8.0
2500
82
0000
.0
455.
02
910.0
4502
1,2
20,9
10
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38,0
00
1
,182
,910
2003
10
0.00
1500
15
0000
.0 32
8.0
2600
85
2800
.0
455.
08
3640
.041
08
1,006
,440
35
,000
1000
30
00
3
9,000
9
67,4
40
2004
10
0.00
1500
15
0000
.0 32
8.0
2700
88
5600
.0
455.
020
91
00.0
4220
1,0
44,7
00
35,00
0 10
00
3000
39,0
00
1
,005
,700
2005
10
0.00
1500
15
0000
.0 32
8.0
2700
88
5600
.0
455.
080
36
400.0
4280
1,0
72,0
00
35,00
0 10
00
3000
39,0
00
1
,033
,000
2006
10
0.00
1200
12
0000
.0 32
8.0
2700
88
5600
.0
455.
020
0 91
000.0
4100
1,0
96,6
00
35,00
0 10
00
3000
39,0
00
1
,057
,600
2007
10
0.00
500
5000
0.0
328.0
26
00
8528
00.0
45
5.0
1000
45
5000
.041
00
1,357
,800
1000
30
00
4,000
1,3
53,8
00
2008
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
328.0
25
00
8200
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,750
,000
1000
30
00
4,000
1,7
46,0
00
2009
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2010
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2011
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2012
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2013
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2014
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2015
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2016
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2017
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2018
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
2019
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
25
00
5725
00.0
45
5.0
2000
91
0000
.047
00
1,502
,500
1000
30
00
4,000
1,4
98,5
00
IIR
: 45
%
NP
V:
$1,5
46,1
76.29
22
Annex 2. Returns on research on the use of new varieties including clone 199062.1 for 1,000 ha.
IN
A100
Ar
ea
Total
be
nefit
Huam
bach
ero
Clon
1990
62.1
Pr
oject
costs
Year
Ne
t be
nefit/
ha
Net
bene
fit/ha
Ar
ea
Tota
l be
nefit
Net
bene
fit/ha
Ar
ea
Tota
l be
nefit
Total
ar
ea
Total
ben
efit a
ll va
rietie
s IN
IA &
CIP
re
sear
ch
Exten
sion
Seed
To
tal co
sts
Net a
dded
value
1991
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.00
35
,000
0 0
35
,000
(3
5,00
0)
1992
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.00
35
,000
0 0
35
,000
(3
5,00
0)
1993
0
0
0
0.0
0
0.00
35
,000
0 50
0
35,5
00
(35,
500)
1994
57
9.00
2 11
58.0
0
0.0
0
0.02
1
,158
35
,000
2000
10
00
38,0
00
(36,
842)
1995
57
9.00
8 46
32.0
0
0.0
0
0.08
4
,632
35
,000
2000
10
00
38,0
00
(33,
368)
1996
57
9.00
20
1158
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.020
11,5
80
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38
,000
(2
6,42
0)
1997
57
9.00
80
4632
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.080
46,3
20
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38
,000
8,3
20
1998
57
9.00
200
1158
00.0
328.0
1
328.
0
00.0
201
116
,128
35
,000
2000
10
00
38,0
00
78
,128
1999
57
9.00
450
2605
50.0
328.0
10
32
80.0
0
0.046
0
2
63,8
30
35,00
0 20
00
1000
38
,000
2
25,8
30
2000
20
0.00
1000
20
0000
.0 32
8.0
80
2624
0.0
0
0.010
80
226
,240
35
,000
2000
10
00
38,0
00
188
,240
2001
20
0.00
2500
50
0000
.0 32
8.0
220
7216
0.0
0
0.027
20
572
,160
35
,000
2000
10
00
38,0
00
534
,160
2002
20
0.00
2000
40
0000
.0 32
8.0
1000
32
8000
.045
5.0
291
0.030
02
728
,910
35
,000
2000
10
00
38,0
00
690
,910
2003
10
0.00
1000
10
0000
.0 32
8.0
800
2624
00.0
455.0
8
3640
.018
08
366
,040
35
,000
1000
30
00
39,0
00
327
,040
2004
10
0.00
500
5000
0.0
328.0
80
0 26
2400
.045
5.0
2091
00.0
1320
3
21,5
00
35,00
0 10
00
3000
39
,000
2
82,5
00
2005
10
0.00
500
5000
0.0
328.0
80
0 26
2400
.045
5.0
8036
400.0
1380
3
48,8
00
35,00
0 10
00
3000
39
,000
3
09,8
00
2006
10
0.00
400
4000
0.0
328.0
80
0 26
2400
.045
5.0
200
9100
0.014
00
393
,400
35
,000
1000
30
00
39,0
00
354
,400
2007
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
328.0
60
0 19
6800
.045
5.0
600
2730
00.0
1400
4
89,8
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
4
85,8
00
2008
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
328.0
60
0 19
6800
.045
5.0
600
2730
00.0
1400
4
89,8
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
4
85,8
00
2009
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
60
0 13
7400
.045
5.0
600
2730
00.0
1400
4
30,4
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
4
26,4
00
2010
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
50
0 11
4500
.045
5.0
500
2275
00.0
1200
3
62,0
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
3
58,0
00
2011
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2012
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2013
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2014
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2015
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2016
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2017
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2018
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
2019
10
0.00
200
2000
0.0
229.0
40
0 91
600.
045
5.0
400
1820
00.0
1000
2
93,6
00
10
00
3000
4
,000
2
89,6
00
IIR:
38%
NPV:
$663
,228
.75
23
Assumptions
• The areas of the variety INA 100-INIA tend to diminish while the area ofthe promising clone increases. In approximately 2008, the areas of INA100-INIA will be stabilized at about 200 ha.
• The areas of the variety INIA 306 Huambachero remain almost unalteredbecause of a lack of alternative purple sweetpotato seed; we only advanceto a slight diminishing as of the year 2007 onwards.
• Increase in areas of clone 199062.1 is progressive, and the planted areawill reach 2000 ha by the year 2009.
• The costs of research for the program (US$35,000) are budgeted for 4 moreyears (until 2006) considering the work needed for the release of, and thefirst follow-ups on, the new variety.
• As of 2007, costs will be minimal with regard to the production anddiffusion of quality seed.
