Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSN 0256-8748
Social Sciences
Working Paper
No. 2010 - 2
ii
Working Paper
Assessing potato farmers’
perceptions on abiotic stresses and
implications for crop improvement
research in heat-prone Gujarat, India
4
© International Potato Center (CIP), 2010
International Potato Center • Working Paper 1
ISSN 0256-8748
Correct citation:
Assessing potato farmers’ perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications
for 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. International
Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru. Working Paper 2010-2. 57 p.
Layout
Zandra Vasquez
iii
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
iv
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
v
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)
vi
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.
vii
viii
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
4 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
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
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.
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 5
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
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.
Figure 1a.
Leading potato growing
countries (area)
Figure 1b.
Leading potato
growing countries
(production)
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
6 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
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
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.
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 7
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
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.
8 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
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
Figure 2.
Map of 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 9
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
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.
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.
10 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
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
(O E ) 2
2
E
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.
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 11
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
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.
12 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
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
storability in the preceding sentence refers to higher storage losses (at ambient temperature as
well as during cold storage) of potato 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
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.
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 13
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
14 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
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
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.
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 15
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
Figure 3.
Priority index (0-100) of
various varietal attributes
Figure 4.
Percent relative
importance of top
preferred five
attributes.
16 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
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
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.
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.
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 17
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
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.
Figure 5.
Education index (1-5) of
head of the family.
Potato growers
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.
18 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
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
Figure 6.
Labour participation across
farm categories (5%)
Potato growers
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.
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.
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 19
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
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.
Figure 7.
Annual Potato Income (US$).
US$ = 48 INR
Figure 8.
Net annual family income
of respondents (US$)
US$ = 48 INR
NP NC AR
Potato growers
20 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
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
Figure 9.
Per capita annual
US$ = 48 INR income (US$)
NP= Non potato growers
NC= Non cultivators
AR= All respondents
Potato growers
Figure 10.
Percent contribution
of potato.
Particulars Category
Potato growers Non- potato Non- Overall
Marginal Small Medium Large All growers cultivators
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
Figure 11.
House condition
index (1-5).
Potato growers
22 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
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
Figure 12.
Nutritional security across
farm categories (%).
Potato growers
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.
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 23
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
Figure 13.
Social participation NP= Non potato growers
level (%). NC= Non cultivators
AR= All respondents
Potato growers
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).
Figure 14.
Monthly food and total
expenditure (US$)
US$ = 48 INR
Potato growers
Figure 15.
Ratio of food
expenditure and net
income (Engel’s curve).
Potato growers
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.
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 25
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
Particulars Category
Potato growers Non- potato Overall
Marginal Small Medium Large All growers
Tractor 0.111 0.412 0.560 1.000 0.412 0.000 0.159
Potato 0.000 0.112 0.375 0.938 0.225 0.000 0.082
planter
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
26 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
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
Particulars Category
Potato growers Non- potato Non- Overall
Marginal Small Medium Large All growers cultivators
Cultivated land 1.564 2.320 3.356 8.352 2.844 0.808 0.040 1.184
(owned)
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 0.096 0.116 0,276 2.200 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.128
(rented in)
Cultivated land 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.040 0.020
(rented out)
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.
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.
28 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
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
Table 12. Area under different potato varieties (Ha per farm)
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 29
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
Table 14. Seed replacement rate of different potato varieties (interval in years)
30 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
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
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 (%)
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 31
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
12
This is a commonly known information as cut seed is more likely to spread diseases in the upcoming crop.
32 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
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
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 33
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
34 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
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
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 35
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
36 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
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
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.
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 37
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
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.
38 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
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
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
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 39
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
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.
40 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
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
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.
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 41
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
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.
42 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
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
ANNEXES
Annex 2. Priority indices for breeding new potato varieties (Multiple responses)
Top 10 breeding Category of potato growers % importance
priorities
Marginal Small Medium Large All
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 31.25 43.75 25.00 93.50 48.43
blight*** 11.78
4. Resistance to PTM*** 25.00 31.25 43.75 56.25 39.06 9.50
5.Large and uniform 31.25 37.50 37.50 37.50 35.94 8.75
tubers
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
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 43
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
44 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
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
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 45
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
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
1. Household information
Please provide details of household members and workers (starting with respondent)
Relation with head Gender Age Education Primary Secondary Labour
level occupation occupation participation
1.Respondent (_________)
2.
3.
4.
CODES Education level Relationship with head Occupation Labour
Gender 1. None 1. Self 1. Farming participation
1. Male 2. Primary (≤ 7 years) 2. Spouse 2. Salaried job (during
3. Secondary 3. Child 3. Business
2. Female 4. Secondary specialized 4. Parent 4. Home production
5. Higher education 5. Other relatives management season)
6. Other (specify)_________ 5. Student 1. Full time
6. Other worker
(specify)_____ 2. Part time
worker
3. Not a
worker
4. Other
(specify)__
46 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
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
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 9. Onions
1. Potatoes 10. Melon/watermelon
2. Maize 11. Peas
3. Cotton
4. Wheat 12. Caster
5. Tomatoes 13. Fodder
6. Suran (Jamikand/ Elephant foot)
7. Groundnut 14. Other (specify)______
8. Cabbage
6. Potato plots
a) Growing potatoes for ________ years
b) No. of potato crops you take in a year?___________
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 47
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
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 _____________
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
48 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
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
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 Area Source of Seed use Production
grown (_____) seed
Quantity Price Seed Cut=1 Quantity (qt)
(qt) (Rs/ qt) size Whole=2
2007-08 (Main)
Second crop
2008-09 (Main)
Second crop
b) For each potato variety grown, when the variety was grown first time and what was the seed
source?
Variety Year first Seed Seed replacement Codes Seed source
grown grown source first
time
After how many What was the Varieties grown 1 Own
years? last seed
source? 1 K. Badshah 2 Neighbour (untrained)
2 K. Lauvkar 3 Market trader
3 K. Pukhraj 4 Commercial seed grower/
4 K. Chip-1 trained farmer
5 K. Chip-3 5 Seed grower association
6 K. Surya (________
7 Lady Rosetta 6 Chambal Agritech/ technico
8 Shepody 7 Govt. farms
8 Other (specify)_________
9 Kennebec
10 Atlantic
11 Other (_______
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 (√)
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 49
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
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)____________________________________________________________________________
a) Before these varieties (listed above), what old varieties did you grow and main reasons for abandoning them?
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:
Variety Good qualities Bad qualities
Most important 2nd important 3rd Important Most important 2nd important 3rd Important
50 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
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
d) What should be the priorities for potato breeding for future varieties (what traits)?
i. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. ___________________________________________________________________________________________
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 One year before Comments, if any
this year this year
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 51
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
2008-09
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) _______________________________________________
52 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
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
b) If yes, indicate the major marketing problems, starting with the most important
Year and Variety Marketing problems Varieties grown Marketing problems
season Most 2nd 3nd important 1. K. Badshah 1. Low prices
important important 2. K. Lauvkar 2. Long distance to
2007-08 3. K. Pukhraj market
4. K. Chip-1 3. Market intelligence
5. K. Chip-3
6. K. Surya 4. Market malpractices
7. Lady Rosetta 5. Payment delays
8. Shepody 6. Costly transportation
9. Kennebec 7. Small quantity for sale
10. Atlantic
2008-09 8. Other (_____________
11. Other (________
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. __________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
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 53
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.
3.
54 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
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
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. ____________________________________________________ _____________________________
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 55
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
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 When given Amount of Loan duration Interest rate Kind of Purpose
finance loan (Rs) (months) (%/year) guarantee of loan
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 (√)
56 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
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
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 (___________________)
CIP’s Vision
Our vision is roots and tubers improving the lives of the poor.