Assessing potato farmers' perceptions on abiotic stresses

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

2010-2 Working Paper

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

ISSN 0256-8748 Social Sciences Working Paper No. 2010 - 2

ii

Rajesh K Rana, BP Singh, SK Pandey Central Potato Research Institute (C PRI), Shimla-171001 HP, India Neeraj Sharma, MS Kadian, Girish BH, S Arya, D Campilan International Potato Center (CIP), Regional Office for SWCA, New Delhi, India NH Patel Potato Research Station, Banaskantha, Gujarat, India C. Carli International Potato Center (CIP) Liaison Office for CGIAR-CAC, Tashkent, Uzbekistan R. Schafleitner, M. Bonierbale, G. Thiele International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru

Working Paper

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

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

Comments are invited.

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

International Potato Center • Working Paper 1

4 © International Potato Center (CIP), 2010 ISSN 0256-8748 CIP publications contribute important development information to the public arena. Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce material from them in their own publications. As copyright holder CIP requests acknowledgement, and a copy of the publication where the citation or material appears. Please send a copy to the Communication and Public Awareness Department at the address below.

International Potato Center P.O.Box 1558, Lima 12, Peru cip@cgiar.org • www.cipotato.org Produced by the CIP Communication and Public Awareness Department (CPAD) 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 Printed in Peru by Comercial Gráfica Sucre Press run: 150 December 2010

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. vi Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledments .................................................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Objectives of the survey ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Objectives of the survey........................................................................................................................................ 8 3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 4. Results and Discussion.........................................................................................................................................11 4.1. Diagnosis of farmers’ perception on variety development .........................................................11 4.1.1.

Responses on yield enhancing attributes ....................................................................11 4.1.2.

Desirable and undesirable varietal characters............................................................12 4.1.3.

Reasons for abandoning varieties...................................................................................13 4.1.4.

Responses on heat and drought stress .........................................................................14 4.1.5.

Priorities for breeding future varieties ..........................................................................15 4.1.6.

Early maturing potato varieties .......................................................................................16 4.1.7.

Processing varieties .............................................................................................................17 4.2. Baseline indicators for future impact assessment ..........................................................................17 4.2.1.

Educational qualification ...................................................................................................17 4.2.2.

Primary occupation..............................................................................................................18 4.2.3.

Gender ratio of head of households ..............................................................................18 4.2.4.

Labour participation............................................................................................................19 4.2.5.

Net annual family income..................................................................................................19 4.2.7.

Proportion of potato income............................................................................................21 4.2.8.

Dairy animals..........................................................................................................................21 4.2.9.

Household assets..................................................................................................................22 4.2.10.

House condition....................................................................................................................22 4.2.11.

Nutritional security ..............................................................................................................23 4.2.12.

Water and electricity connections ..................................................................................23 4.2.13.

Toilets .......................................................................................................................................23 4.2.14.

Social participation ..............................................................................................................24 4.2.15.

Migration.................................................................................................................................24 4.2.16.

Other indicators ....................................................................................................................24 4.2.17.

Expenditure pattern ............................................................................................................25 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.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Percent relative importance of top preferred five attributes. ............................................16 Education index (1-5) of head of the family .............................................................................18 Labour participation across farm categories (5%)..................................................................19 Annual Potato Income (US$) .........................................................................................................20 Net annual family income of respondents (US$)....................................................................20 Per capita annual income (US$)....................................................................................................21 Percent contribution of potato.....................................................................................................21 House condition index (1-5) ..........................................................................................................22 Nutritional security across farm categories (%).......................................................................23 Social participation level (%). ........................................................................................................24 Monthly food and total expenditure (US$)...............................................................................25 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, CIPLima 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.

Objectives of the Survey: In order to mitigate the risk of non-adoption of potato varieties by farmers once they are developed it was decided to carry out a diagnostic cum baseline survey in proposed project areas. Answers to the following questions were elicited in this survey.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

What actions farmers think, can further increase potato yield and income on their farms?

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

Why farmers abandoned some potato varieties in the past?

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

What priorities farmers regard as desirable characters in the future potato varieties?

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S ’

P E R C E P T I O N S

O N

A B I O T I C

S T R E S S E S

1

C I P

•

S O C I A L

6.

7.

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 to compare production systems and livelihood status of potato and non-potato farmers?

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

1.

•

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

Educational qualification: Level of education of average household head in non-potato growers was slightly (3% lower) lower than the potato growing farmers. However this gap was much wider (46% lower) in case of non-farmers.

2.

Primary Occupation: Proportion of potato growers having farming as their primary occupation was slightly higher (at 88%) than the non-potato growers (at 83%). But, more or less equal proportion of non-farmers was finding primary occupation in labour.

3.

Gender ratio of head of households: All heads of surveyed farming households were males. However, 5% of heads of non-cultivator households were females.

4.

Labour participation: Labour participation of non-potato growers was marginally higher than that of potato growers. Overall 35% of heads of households in the area work personally on their farms.

5.

Net annual family income Net annual family income: Net family income in US$ was 5348 for potato growers, 2095 for non-potato growers and just 885 for non-farmers.

Average annual net family income of potato growers was 2.55 times higher than the non-potato growers. Average annual potato income showed tremendous increase with the increase in potato holding (marginal = UD$ 338 to large potato farmers = US$ 6682).

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

6.

Per capita income: Even the marginal potato farmers (most disadvantaged among potato farmers) were having per capita income (US$ 616) higher than the non-potato growers (US$ 328). However, non-farmers were the poorest category of respondents in the study area with annual per capita income just US$ 186.

7.

Proportion of potato income: Proportion of potato income in the overall agricultural income of potato farmers was nearly 36%. Potato contributed nearly 28% of the net family income (from all sources).

8.

Dairy animals: Number of dairy animals were more or less same among all potato growers’ categories (7.43 all potato farmers). However, non-potato growers (3.00) and non-cultivators (2.45) had much less number of milch animals as compared to the potato farmers.

9.

House condition: The house condition (range 1 to 5) of even the marginal potato farmers (score = 4.06) was very near to the highest category (INR 0.5 million house = score 5) considered during the survey. However, house condition of non-potato growers (score = 2.67) was much below as compared to the potato growers. The house condition of non-farmers (score = 1.80) was even worse vis-à-vis the non-potato growers.

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 200708(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

Assessing potato farmers’ perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-prone Gujarat, India 1. INTRODUCTION Potato is the world’s fourth most important food crop after rice, wheat and maize. In India potato is largely consumed as vegetable. India is an important potato producing country in the world, ranking fourth in area (after China, Russia and Ukraine) and third ranking in production (after China and Russia) (Figures 1a and 1b). India has higher average potato productivity than China, Russia and Ukraine.

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

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE SURVEY A large number of agricultural technologies, including new varieties, are not adopted by the farmers. Conducting a diagnostic survey to find what technology/ variety farmers need before it is developed has been widely recommended by social scientists. To understand what attributes farmers want in new potato varieties in Gandhinagar district of Gujarat was an important component of this study. To study and fix baseline indicators for future impact assessment of this crop improvement research project was another objective. This study tried to answer the following questions.

1.

What actions, according to farmers, can further increase potato yield and income on their farms?

2.

What is farmers’ perception on desirable and undesirable characters of existing potato varieties grown by them?

3.

Why farmers abandoned some potato varieties in the past?

4.

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

5.

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

6.

How to compare production systems and livelihood status of potato and non-potato farmers?

7.

How to identify and fix baseline indicators and standpoints for future impact assessment of the project activities.

3. METHODOLOGY Gandhinagar being one of the hottest potato growing districts of Gujarat was selected for this study (Figure 2). Three villages of Gandhingar viz., Premnagar, Indirapura and Nandol were selected for the study on the basis of a pilot survey1. These villages were representative potato growing areas of the region. The final survey was conducted between February 10 and 18, 2009.

1

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

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.

Table 1. Sampling details (No. of respondents) Villages

Indirapuram

Category of potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

13

10

2

1

26

Nonpotato

Land less

All

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, chisquare 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

2  

•

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 E

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section is discussed in two broad headings: diagnosis of farmers’ perception on variety development; and baseline indicators for future impact assessment.

4.1. Diagnosis of farmers’ perception on variety development 4.1.1. Responses on yield enhancing attributes Farmers’ opinions on whether potato yield on their farms can increase were analysed. Seventeen factors, covering crop management and the enabling environment, which can contribute towards increasing the yield along with factors’ respective importance in farmers’ mind were also collected and analysed. These factors were selected based on the past survey experiences of team members in same or similar conditions. All the respondents across all farmers’ categories believe that yields of potato crop on their farms can further increase. Very high proportion of farmers (98.5%) believes that high yielding new potato varieties can further increase their potato yield (Table 2). Other closely perceived factor2 by the farmers was heat tolerant potato varieties (95.5%) followed by proper late blight control (81.5%), water saving technologies (74.5%) and drought tolerant varieties (69%). Importance index of these factors, ranging from 1 (low) to 5 (high) was the highest for heat tolerant varieties (3.87) followed by high yielding new potato varieties (3.45), better agricultural extension services (3.24), proper late blight control (3.13) and water saving technologies3.

Chi-square test indicated that farmers of different categories provided statistically different weights for role of soil reclamation, fertilizer doses, low prices of inputs and better agricultural extension services in increasing their potato yield at 1% level of significance. Marginal farmers put

2

Farmers’ elicited scores on importance of every attribute (ranging from 1 to 5) were taken. The average of all responses on a particular attribute is referred to the importance index. “No responses” were not considered.

3

Drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation were the two important water saving technologies available with the farmers of study area. Reportedly drip irrigation saves up to 70% water and sprinkler irrigation saves up to 50% water as compared to the conventional furrow application. Sprinkler irrigation was found to initiate and aggravate late blight infection in potato crop. Hence, drip irrigation was the best water saving technology available with the studied farmers. In addition to water saving this irrigation technology was responsible for checking late blight infection and better efficiency of nutrients through fertigation. Gujarat government is providing 50% subsidy (with the cap of INR 50000 per ha) on water saving technologies. During previous few years farmers have adopted these water saving technologies very fast making them quite popular in the state.

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.

Table 2. Farmers’ perception on potato yield enhancing attributes Responses

Potato growers Marginal

Yield can further increase.

Sufficient irrigation water Soil reclamation*** High Yielding Potato varieties Water saving technology Drought resistant varieties** Heat tolerant varieties

Small

Medium

Large

All

% MR 100.00

Im In n/a

% MR 100.00

Im In n/a

% MR 100.00

Im In n/a

% MR 100.00

Im In n/a

% MR 100.00

Im In n/a

50.00

2.31

62.50

2.92

68.75

2.92

62.50

2.33

60.61

2.62

27.78 100.00

1.75 3.12

6.67 100.00

1.00 3.75

40.00 93.75

1.67 3.56

21.43 100.00

1.83 3.38

24.19 98.51

1.65 3.45

83.33

2.67

76.47

2.92

62.50

2.79

75.00

3.00

74.63

2.84

81.25

2.69

58.82

2.69

56.25

2.69

81.25

3.13

69.23

2.81

94.44

3.53

100.00

3.81

93.75

4.00

93.33

4.13

95.45

3.87

High dose of fertilizer*** Proper weed control*

44.44

2.42

40.00

2.67

66.67

3.09

26.67

1.67

44.44

2.55

29.41

1.78

53.33

2.60

46.67

2.56

40.00

1.56

49.53

2.14

Insect pest control**

47.06

1.85

68.75

2.31

80.00

2.75

68.75

2.46

67.19

2.33

Proper Late Blight 88.89 2.94 75.00 3.33 68.75 2.79 93.33 3.54 81.54 3.13 management Management of other 43.75 1.75 53.33 2.00 43.67 1.50 66.67 2.00 52.46 1.83 diseases* Adequate availability 50.00 2.08 43.75 2.56 56.25 2.18 37.50 2.33 46.97 2.27 of pesticides Adequate availability 50.00 2.45 53.33 2.11 53.33 2.00 43.75 2.36 50.00 2.25 of fertilizers Adequate availability 55.56 3.18 60.00 2.89 75.00 2.78 56.35 2.40 61.54 2.82 of funds Availability of cheaper 47.06 2.88 53.33 2.38 66.67 3.11 42.86 2.43 52.46 2.72 machinery* Low input prices*** 72.22 2.92 66.67 2.70 80.00 2.90 40.00 2.22 65.08 2.71 Better Agril Extension 94.12 3.31 23.53 2.91 31.25 3.45 85.71 3.25 57.81 3.24 Services*** % MR = Percent multiple responses; Im In = Farmers’ perceived Importance index (range 1 to 5); Chi-square test indicated statistically different response levels among farm categories at * = 10%; ** = 5%; and *** = 1% level of significance. Chi square test was applied on actual number of multiple responses and is applicable for %MR.

4.1.2. Desirable and undesirable varietal characters Desirable and undesirable characters of existing potato varieties were described by the participants. For this part of the study respondents were asked open-ended questions. They were asked to name three most important good and bad characters of existing potato varieties. High yield, early maturity, desirable (big and uniform) tuber size, good storability, higher price of the output and suitability for processing were important desirable characters the farmers were looking for (Table 3). Low yield, susceptibility to heat and late blight, late maturity, bad storability and low price of the output were important undesirable characters in farmers’ mind. Bad 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

â&#x20AC;˘

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.

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

Particulars

Variety K. Badshah

K. Pukhraj

47.5

72.7

--

63.6

K. Lauvkar

Good qualities Yield Early maturing Desirable tuber size Good storability High price Good for processing

50.0

32.8

--

--

52.5

--

75.0

47.5

--

50.0

--

--

50.0

--

--

50.0

43.2

23.1

--

23.1

Bad qualities Low yield Susceptible to heat Late blight susceptible Late maturing Bad storability Low price

25.0

24.3

--

--

--

46.2

--

--

30.8

--

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

4.1.3. Reasons for abandoning varieties Four varieties were reported abandoned4 by all (Kufri Chandramukhi) or some of the respondents (K. Jyoti, K. Luvkar and K. Pukhraj) (Table 4). Low yield as a reason for abandoning K. Chandramukhi and K. Lauvkar was reported by all the concerned respondents. Late blight susceptibility was another reason for abandoning K. Chandramukhi by two third of the respondents. Low yield, problem of tuber cracking during bulking stage and longer duration of maturity were important reasons reported by responding farmers for abandoning K. Jyoti.

Cultivation of K. Pukhraj which is still an important potato variety in the study area was stopped by some growers. The main reasons for abandoning this variety were low price of the product followed by its heat susceptibility and poor storability. Tubers of this variety fetch lower prices on account of early (pre mature) harvesting and lower dry matter.

4

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

13 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 4. Reasons for varietal abandonment (multiple responses).

Variety/ reason

% of responses

Kufri Chandramukhi Low yield

100.0

Late blight susceptible

66.7

Kufri Jyoti Long duration

33.3

Cracking

66.7

Low yield

66.7

Kufri Lauvkar Low yield

100.0

Expensive seed

33.3

Kufri Pukhraj Low prices

66.7

Heat susceptible

50.0

Poor storability

50.0

Note: Due to less number of responses in respect to various farm categories, the category wise analysis was not carried out

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

Night temperature should be less than 180C for proper tuber initiation and bulking (Basu and Minhas, 1991). With exposure to higher temperature, potato plants show increased vegetative growth without converting carbohydrates into tubers (Minhas and Devendra, 2005). Plants become tall and lanky. Drought on the other hand is responsible for general disturbance in plant health. Plant becomes weak and more susceptible to other biotic and abiotic stresses.

Respondents were interviewed to express their opinions on drought and heat stresses. Ninety percent of respondents believed that heat was a limiting factor towards achieving higher yield levels (Table 5). A lower proportion (31.5%) of respondents pointed out drought as abiotic stress to the potato crop. However, higher proportion of small and marginal farmers regarded drought as a potential threat to their potato crop. Since ground water level was very deep in the study area, the cost of digging tube wells was very high. Small and medium farmers on account of paucity of funds along with small and fragmented landholdings were at disadvantage to have personal source of assured irrigation. They depend increasingly on larger farmers for irrigation water, which they get at comparatively higher per hour charges. Large farmers may or may not provide them irrigation water at the right time due to their own needs.

14

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

Category of potato growers Type of stress

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

Drought

33.33

47.06

18.75

25.00

31.34

Heat

88.89

82.24

100.00

100.00

94.03

4.1.5. Priorities for breeding future varieties Finally, the respondent farmers were asked to express their four most important priorities of the attributes they want in new potato varieties to be developed under the GTZ project. Top ten attributes were selected as per the indices (ranging from a low of 0 to the high of 100) of responses (Annex 1 and 2). Production constraints under existing situation had strong influence on the future potato breeding priorities in the study area.

Relative importance of these attributes (in percentage) was also calculated. Year 2008-09 being very hot, farmers perceived5 losses on account of low potato yields. The responding farmers showed heat tolerance in potato varieties their first priority (index = 92 and relative importance = 22.43%) (Figures 3 and 4). High yield was the second most important attribute. High potato yield scored relatively low on the rating scale of large farmers as they are more concerned with quality attributes than just the higher yield. Large farmers which are generally the trend setter, had less focus on higher yield vis-a-vis the other attributes such as resistance to late blight followed by processing grade varieties, resistance to potato tuber moth and early maturing potato varieties.

Overall, resistance to late blight and potato tuber moth were respectively the third and fourth most important attributes on farmers’ preference list. Chi-square statistics showed that respondents among farm categories had different levels of preferences for high yield, resistance to late blight and potato-tuber-moth, suitability for processing, early maturity and shining skin at 1% level of significance.

5

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

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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.

4.1.6. Early maturing potato varieties Early maturing potato varieties are very important for farmers in Gujarat state in general and Gandhinagar district in particular. This importance stems from the fact that farmers in this state seriously try to take an additional crop after potato. Besides, they also try to escape heat and potato tuber moth damage during February and March. However, eighth priority for early maturing attribute (Figure 3) in future potato varieties, due to relatively lower priority index and relative importance, was lower than the general expectation of the survey team. It was due to the 16

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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.

4.1.7. Processing varieties Responses of farmers may have been guided by their personal needs and experiences undermining attributes of wider interest. India in general and Gujarat in particular have shown tremendous growth in potato processing sector (Rana and Pandey, 2007). Raw material (processing grade tubers) demand of potato processing industry in India was estimated 2.678 million MT during 2010-11 (Rana and Pandey, 2007). This demand constitutes 10.76% of Indian average potato production during TE 2007-08 (DES, 2010). Although, specific estimates for Gujarat state are not available yet the study by Rana and Pandey (2007) clearly indicates that the proportionate demand of processing grade tubers in this state is much higher than the national one. Varietal attribute suggesting suitability of potato variety for processing has got seventh highest ranking with a priority index of 29.69 (Figure 3). Breeders should assign higher importance to this attribute too.

4.2. Baseline indicators for future impact assessment Education level of head of the household, occupational pattern, proportion of female heads of households and labour participation level of average respondent are some of the important indicators that shall be used as indicators for future comparisons (Annex 3).

4.2.1. Educational qualification Educational qualification of a person is very important indicator for assessing his/ her responsiveness to external stimuli in addition to taking right decisions. In case of farmers these stimuli can be new technologies, new government schemes and new inputs etc. Level of 6

Marginal farmers usually have low volume of produce and are more likely to be exploited in the process of marketing.

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

17 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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

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 nonfarmers.

Figure 5.

Education index (1-5) of head of the family.

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

Potato growers

4.2.2. Primary occupation Primary occupation of a person not only reflects his/ her seriousness and commitment in that particular occupation but also conveys important indication about his/ her socio-economic condition7. Proportion of potato growers having farming as their primary occupation was slightly higher than the non-potato growers (Annex 3). But, more or less equal proportion of non-farmers was finding primary occupation in labour. Since the proportion of non-farmers in the study area was very high hence about 44% of the household heads were resorting to labour as their primary occupation. Nearly half of the household head were having farming as their primary occupation in this area which is primarily agriculture based.

4.2.3. Gender ratio of head of households Gender ratio of household heads indicates pattern of involvement of a particular sex in agricultural decision making. Farming is male dominated profession in the study area (Annex 3).

All heads of surveyed farming households were males. Even in case of death or non-availability of head of household the agriculture related decisions are taken by another male member of the family. However, 5% of the head of non-farming households were females.

7

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

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

4.2.4. Labour participation Labour participation shows actual involvement of a person on his/ her own farms. Labour participation of non-potato growers was marginally higher than that of potato growers (Figure 6). It was due to the reason that potato growers were wealthier and many of them don’t personally work on their farms. Overall 35% of heads of households in the area used to personally work on their farms.

Figure 6.

Labour participation across farm categories (5%) NP= Non potato growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents

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.

4.2.5. Net annual family income Family income from all sources (Table 8) confirms that potato growers constitute the richest section of households in the study area8. Category wise net family income in US$ has been depicted in Figure 8.

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

Within animal husbandry dairy was the sole source of income9. It is worth mentioning that very high proportion of Gujaraties (people not only living in Gujarat but also adopting local traditions and values) is vegetarian. No responding farmer sold animals for meat purpose. Net income from

8

It is the net agricultural income (after subtracting all paid out input costs and interest costs). However; salaries/wages=gross; business=net of expenses and costs were considered. Disposable income term was not used as savings were not subtracted.

9

In all cases potato was a cash crop. Due to very high temperatures following crop harvest farmers were not retaining more than 2 months’ potato consumption equivalent for home consumption. Home consumption of potato varied between nearly 50 kg to 200 kg per year per family. This quantity was valued at market rate. No other significant nonmonetary 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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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= Non potato growers NC= Non cultivators AR= All respondents

Potato growers

NP

NC

AR

4.2.6. Per capita income Per capita income is one of the most reliable indicators of economic well being of a family. The per capita income across various categories of respondents in US$ (Figure 9) present similar scenario as depicted by net family income. Even the marginal potato farmers (most disadvantaged among potato farmers) were having per capita income higher than the nonpotato growers. However, non-farmers were the poorest category of respondents in the study area.

20

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 income (US$)

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

Potato growers

4.2.7. Proportion of potato income Proportion of potato income in the overall agricultural income of potato farmers was nearly 36% (Figure 10) while it occupies only 25% of the annual cropping time. In the study area farmers invariably keep their land continuously under cultivation for the entire year. Potato contributed nearly 28% of the net family income (from all sources). Potato is a capital intensive and high risk crop (Annex 4). Large farmers are in better position to manage risk and cultivate potato on higher proportion of their cultivated land. They have better control and more efficient use of indivisible fixed costs associated with this crop.

Figure 10.

Percent contribution of potato.

4.2.8. Dairy animals Gujarat is world famous for its dairy cooperatives. All milk produced (irrespective of quantity) is purchased by these cooperatives at the farm gate. These cooperatives do provide technical and inputs support to their members. Number of lactating animals on a farm is an important indicator of financial health of the farm family. Dairy not only provides additional income to the farmers but also cushions against crop failures. Number of lactating animals on the farms of potato growers showed less variation across the categories (Table 6). However, non-potato growers and non-farmers had much less number of lactating animals as compared to the potato farmers.

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

21

C I P

â&#x20AC;˘

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

Category Non- potato growers

Noncultivators

Overall

Cattle

Marginal 5.28

Potato growers Small Medium Large 5.00 4.81 3.07

All 4.87

1.83

1.00

2.57

Buffaloes

2.33

2.76

2.13

3.38

2.56

1.17

1.45

1.87

Total

7.61

7.76

6.99

6.44

7.43

3.00

2.45

4.43

4.2.9. Household assets Household assets are another indicator of economic wellbeing. Various other factors indicating socio-economic condition of respondents were also benchmarked. Out of four household assets viz. motorcycle (personal use), car (personal use), pick-up or utility vehicle (business purpose) and cycle (personal use); potato growers had more assets for personal use (Annex 5). However, nonpotato growers and non-farmers had pick-up vehicles for commercial use.

4.2.10. House condition House condition index showed less signs of poverty among potato farmers (Figure 11). The house condition of even the marginal potato farmers was very near to the highest category (INR 0.5 million house = score 5) considered during the survey. However, house condition of nonpotato growers was much below as compared to the potato growers. The house condition of non-farmers was even worse vis-Ă -vis the non-potato growers. In the study area as well as other parts of the country potato farmers constitute the better-of segment of the farming community.

As potato is a capital demanding, high risk and high returns crop, it is generally the well-off farmers who opt for potato farming on a sustainable basis. It was found that farmers who continue potato cultivation for many years are able to improve their standard of living higher than non-potato farmers (Rana and Khurana, 2003).

Figure 11.

House condition index (1-5).

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

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 â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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

4.2.11. Nutritional security Regularity and balanced food (inclusion of diverse and nutritive food items) were considered as indication of nutritional security of respondents10. Nutritional security is a very important wellbeing indicator and this index was particularly low in case of non-farmers (Figure 12). Nonfarmers are generally landless labourers and need higher attention of development agencies.

Landless labourers particularly the migrant ones resort to consuming same type of food for months together without proper supplementation with milk products or eggs etc. Use of tin containers for the storage of food grains (protects quality and quantity by checking spoilage by moisture and insects) was also guided by family income (Annex 5).

Figure 12.

Nutritional security across farm categories (%).

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

Potato growers

4.2.12. Water and electricity connections Individual water and electricity connections were also expected to be largely affected by annual family income (Annex 5). Non-farmers were once again the disadvantaged segment.

4.2.13. Toilets Large potato growers had high number of temporary toilets, which were primarily made for their servants and permanent labourers (Annex 5). Nearly one third of the respondents among nonpotato 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 â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

4.2.14. Social participation Social participation is an indicator of respondents’ likely exposure to new knowledge and improved decision making. Membership of social organisation such as Mahila Mandals (women welfare groups), various self-help groups, farmers’ clubs, cooperative societies etc. was considered to measure social participation. In this regard tremendous difference was observed between potato farmers and non-potato farmers indicating that potato farmers in the study are socially more united and active (Figure 13). The social participation level of non-farmers was negligible.

Figure 13.

Social participation level (%).

NP= Non potato growers 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).

4.2.16. Other indicators Other indicators like type of children’s school, monthly expenditure of all types (food, children education, travel and bills) were in line with the expectation in relation to net annual family income (Annex 5). Other facilities available on respondents’ house such as cooking gas, television, direct to home television, landline telephone connection, mobile telephone, internet facility and water purifiers were again on expected lines. However, average number of members capable of using email in case of non-farmers was higher as compared to non-potato cultivators and all categories of potato farmers except the large farmers. Invariably, the non-farmer family members using email were undertaking petty jobs (mostly data-feeding) in financial or information technology related agencies. They all were using email at their work places without email facilities at homes.

24

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

4.2.17. Expenditure pattern Average monthly expenditure of different respondent categories was computed on various expenditure items such as food, children education, travel, bill etc (Annex 5). For better and easy international comparison monthly food and total expenditure were graphically depicted in terms of US$ (Figure 14).

Figure 14.

Monthly food and total expenditure (US$)

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

Potato growers

4.2.18. Food expenditure to net income ratio As per Engel’s Law11 the proportion of income spent on food goes on decreasing as the income increases (Schumpeter, 1954). Among respondent categories potato farmers were having lowest food expenditure to total family income ratio (Figure 15). Hence, results (seen along with net family income (Figure 8) are conclusive and as per Engel’s Law. Figure 15.

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

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

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.

11

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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

4.2.19. Farm assets Inventory of farm assets reflects investment levels in agriculture that ensure operational certainties. The average number of important farm assets such as tractor, potato planter, potato digger, tractor-trolley and plough were as per expectation (Table 7).

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

Particulars

Category

Tractor

Marginal 0.111

Small 0.412

Potato growers Medium Large 0.560 1.000

Non- potato growers

Overall

All 0.412

0.000

0.159

Potato planter Potato digger

0.000

0.112

0.375

0.938

0.225

0.000

0.082

0.056

0.118

0.125

0.938

0.175

0.000

0.068

Tractor trolley

0.111

0.353

0.500

0.938

0.369

0.000

0.142

Plough

0.889

0.941

1.375

1.938

1.103

0.833

0.483

4.2.20. Land use pattern Land use pattern is an important baseline indicator that can be compared over the time in order to analyse the changes in land ownership and use. On average potato farmers were using 63% of cultivated land for potato (Table 8). Proportion of potato area increased from 50% on small to 77% on large potato farms. How this proportion changes overtime (even within farm categories) will give important information for the researchers. Potato was cultivated on the highest proportion of land vis-a-vis all other crops grown on the farms of sampled households (Table 9).

Cotton (26% of cultivated land) followed by wheat (14%), fodder (11%) and groundnut (10%) were the other important crops on the farms of respondent farmers.

26

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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

Particulars

Category Potato growers Small

Medium

Large

All

Non- potato growers

Noncultivators

Overall

Marginal

Cultivated land (owned) Irrigated

1.564

2.320

3.356

8.352

2.844

0.808

0.040

1.184

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

0.096

0.116

0,276

2.200

0.328

0.000

0.000

0.128

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.008

0.000

0.040

0.020

Cultivated land (rented in) Cultivated land (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.

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

Particulars

Category of potato growers

Non- potato growers

Overall

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

Maize Cotton

0.000 0.510

0.000 0.600

0.000 0.875

0.875 3.137

0.078 0.855

0.000 0.080

0.030 0.340

Wheat Groundnut Vegetables Castor Fodder

0.379 0.267 0.033 0.000 0.246

0.378 0.070 0.014 0.021 0.476

0.450 0.088 0.112 0.088 0.228

0.562 2.488 0.172 0.200 0.406

0.409 0.346 0.052 0.044 0.352

0.320 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.113

0.180 0.135 0.021 0.017 0.145

Mustard Others Potato

0.022 0.202 0.844

0.000 0.110 1.320

0.008 0.412 2.400

0.050 0.725 8.176

0.011 0.254 2.008

0.000 0.107 0.000

0.004 0.106 0.788

4.2.21. Soil health awareness Gujarat farmers pay very high attention to the soil health on their farmland by incorporating high doses of dung manure and opting for frequent green manuring. Incorporation of higher dung manure doses in Gujarat compared to other Indian states was possible due to well developed dairy industry in the state. Other indicators of soil health were also studied. More or less equal number of potato and non-potato respondent farmers undertook testing of their soils (Table 10).

Only 71% potato farmers took action as per the recommendation of soil testing report. The A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

27

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

average soil pH of the respondent farmers was 7.35 (based on soil testing reports). Since incorporation of dung manure to the soil and green manuring are very common practices in the area, about 94% respondents were adopting carbon sequestration measures.

About 68%

sampled potato farmers and 20% non-potato farmers were applying green manure to their farmland. Due to higher uptake of nutrients from soil by potato crop, potato growers were particularly concerned to maintain soil fertility and health status. Very large proportion of farmers’ perceived that their soil texture and/ or structure have not changed over 10 years. However, still a considerable proportion of respondents believed that soil condition has deteriorated. On an average potato growers put 0.40 ha under green manuring while this area was just 0.08 ha in case of non-potato growers. Potato farmers were adopting green manuring to greater extent in order to maintain or enhance productivity of land as potato is relatively a capital intensive, high risk, high reward crop. Potato crop extracts higher soil nutrients compared to other crops grown by the farmers in the study area.

Table 10. Soil health awareness indicators Particulars

Category of potato growers

Non- potato growers

Soil testing index (0-1)

Marginal 0.222

Small 0.313

Medium 0.313

Large 0.688

All 0.319

0.333

Action on test report (0-1)

1

0.333

1

0.875

0.713

1

Soil pH

7.5

--

7.25

7.38

7.35

--

Carbon sequestration measures (0-1) Green manuring done (0-1)

1.000

0.875

1.000

0.889

0.938

1.000

0.615

0.800

0.667

0.385

0.682

0.200

Soil change (No. farmers) Better

0

0

0

1

1

0

Same

5

6

10

7

28

3

Worse

1

1

0

3

5

1

Don’t Know

1

0

0

2

3

1

Average green manuring area 0.40 0.24 0.64 0.59 0.40 0.08 (ha) Soil testing charges were nil for all respondents who got their soils tested. The main reason for testing was tube well installation

4.2.22. Irrigation status Except for large potato growers, furrow irrigation was the only method of irrigation with respondent farmers (Table 11). About 17% of responding potato farmers believe their irrigation water was bad. High fluoride and salt level were the major reasons for bad quality of irrigation water. Purchasing irrigation water, by those who don’t have their own tube wells, was a common practice in the area and average price paid for one hour irrigation water was nearly INR 90. Since water table is very low, many farmers reported scarcity of irrigation water particularly in summer months.

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 11. Irrigation status and quality of irrigation water Particulars

Category of potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

Type of irrigation (%) Furrow 100.000 100.00 100.00 74.375 97.729 Drip 0 0 0 25.625 2.271 Quality of irrigation water (No. of responses) Good 15 13 13 12 53 Bad 2 3 3 4 12 Very Bad 1 0 0 0 1 Water availability (No. of responses) Adequate 16 12 12 14 54 Less 2 4 4 2 12 Scarce 0 0 0 0 0 Problem of irrigation water (No. of responses) Low water table 1 2 2 2 7 Fluoride level 1 2 1 4 Saline 1 1 0 2 4 Sale/Purchase of water (No. of responses) Yes 12 11 6 1 30 No 5 5 10 15 35 Price of water (Rs/hr) 99.167 90.909 73.000 100 90.479 All respondents eliciting bad irrigation water, stated salty water as the reason for bad quality water

Nonpotato growers

Overall

100.000 0

99.11 1.96

6 0 0

59 12 1

2 2 1

56 14 1

1 0 0

8 4 4

5 1 100.00

35 36 91.77

4.2.23. Adoption rate Area covered by particular potato variety shows its adoption rate in the area. Kufri Badshah was the leading potato variety in the area followed by K. Pukhraj and K. Luavkar (Table 12). Based on the two year average i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 K. Badshah covered nearly 64% potato area in the study area followed by K. Pukhraj (33%) and K. Lauvkar (3%).

Table 12. Area under different potato varieties (Ha per farm) Particulars Kufri Badshah 2007-08 2008-09 Kufri Lauvkar 2007-08 2008-09 Kufri Pukhraj 2007-08 2008-09

Category of potato growers Medium Large

Marginal

Small

0.527 0.796

1.050 1.106

1.988 1.638

4.225 2.925

1.369 1.285

0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000

0.853 0.493

0.076 0.044

0.065 0.055

0.205 0.188

0.773 0.680

4.627 5.067

0.672 0.682

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

P E R C E P T I O N S

O N

All

A B I O T I C

S T R E S S E S

29

C I P

â&#x20AC;˘

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

4.2.24. Variety wise potato yield Potato yield is an important indicator of the overall effect of potato research and development activities in an area. Overall the potato yield was 28 tonnes per hectare (Table 13). Average yield of different potato varieties across the farm categories did not vary considerably. Average potato yield on sampled farms may seem to be higher than the national average of 16.76 tonnes per hectare during triennium ending 2007-08; but it is quite close to the state average of 26.65 tonnes during same triennium (DES, 2010). Gujarat has the highest reported potato yield among major potato producing states in India (Kesari and Rana, 2008).

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

Potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

22.35

27.50

29.22

28.45

26.86

Kufri Lauvkar

--

--

--

28.44

28.44

Kufri Pukhraj

22.73

27.01

29.48

27.72

27.35

Total

22.40

27.43

29.27

28.09

27.86

4.2.25. Seed replacement rate Seed replacement rate in potato crop is an important indicator of crop health and farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitude towards farm business. Seed replacement rate was same for K. Badshah and K. Pukhraj varieties. However, this rate was slow (after the interval of 1.5 years) in case of K. Lauvkar (Table 14).

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

Potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

1.07

1.00

1.15

1.36

1.08

Kufri Lauvkar

--

--

--

1.50

1.50

Kufri Pukhraj

1.00

1.00

1.25

1.30

1.08

4.2.26. Seed source Quality of seed potato depends on the source of seed to a very large extent. The highest proportion of seed potato in the study area was supplied by the cooperative societies after obtaining it from reputed seed potato growers in Punjab (Table 15). Other important sources of seed were seed companies, market traders (again supplying seed from Punjab and western Uttar Pradesh). Very small quantities of seed were retained out of own farms or obtained from other 30

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; farms (%) Particulars

2007-08

Category of potato growers Marginal 5.00

Own

Small 0.00

Medium 0.00

Large 14.81

All 5.62

Neighbour

0.00

0.00

4.55

0.00

1.12

Market trader

30.00

10.00

4.55

22.22

16.85

Commercial seed grower

10.00

0.00

9.09

3.70

5.62

55.00

75.00

36.36

22.22

44.94

Seed Companies

0.00

15.00

45.45

33.33

24.72

Direct from Punjab

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.70

1.12

0.00

0.00

5.56

12.50

5.62

0.00

0.00

5.56

3.13

2.25

Cooperative societies

2008-09

Own

Neighbour Market trader

33.33

5.56

5.56

21.88

17.98

Commercial seed grower

0.00

0.00

11.11

12.5

6.74

Cooperative societies

61.90

77.78

33.33

15.62

42.70

Seed Companies

4.76

16.67

38.88

31.25

23.60

Direct from Punjab

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.13

1.12

4.2.27. Seed rate Seed rate is an important factor that has bearing on the overall potato yield of a farm. This vital information can be compared in the future to study the change of cultural practices among sampled farms. Overall nearly 1 ton of seed potato was used per ha (Table 16). Seed rate was generally found to be lower among margined and small farmers.

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

Potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

2007-08

2.23

2.19

2.51

2.66

2.31

2008-09

2.36

2.18

2.52

2.71

2.35

2007-08

-

-

-

2.75

2.75

2008-09

-

-

-

2.70

2.70

2007-08

1.83

2.71

3.1

2.58

2.52

2008-09

1.99

2.97

2.99

2.68

2.66

Kufri Badshah

Kufri Lauvkar

Kufri Pukhraj

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

4.2.28. Seed size Very high proportion of farmers used medium sized seed potato followed by those who used small sized and then who used the large size seed (Table 17). Medium sized (egg size) is considered the best however due to price and availability issues farmers use different sizes of tubers as seed. Very small proportion of farmers used biotechnologically produced virus-free seed of very small size. Biotechnologically produced seed refers to healthy seed produced under controlled environment in biotechnology laboratories (for initial production and multiplication stages) and net/ glass houses for later stages.

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

Category of potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

Total (2007-08) Small

42.11

36.84

13.63

7.14

22.73

Medium

47.37

42.12

77.27

92.86

68.18

Large

10.52

10.52

9.09

0.00

6.82

Other

0.00

10.52

0.00

0.00

2.27

Total (2008-09) Small

55.56

35.29

15.00

33.33

34.25

Medium

38.89

52.95

80.00

66.67

60.27

Large

5.50

5.88

5.00

0.00

4.11

Other

0.00

5.88

0.00

0.00

1.37

4.2.29. Cut/whole seed use Use of cut seed is very common in places where seed-potato is costly and the produce is not retained for next year’s seed requirement12. However, for producing healthy seed-potato, use of whole tuber is one of the important requirements. Cut seed economizes on seed cost without affecting productivity if it is free from infections. On an average cut seed use was nearly 50% greater than the whole seed (Table 18). Generally the large sized seed potato tubers are cut into 3-5 pieces while smaller ones are used whole.

12

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

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

Table 18. Category-wise cut/whole seed-potato utilization pattern (% of responses) Particulars Total (2007-08) Cut Whole Total (2008-09) Cut Whole

Marginal

Small

Potato growers Medium Large

All

57.89 42.11

52.63 47.37

80.95 19.05

62.96 37.04

63.95 36.05

42.11 57.89

58.82 41.18

87.50 12.50

56.67 43.33

59.76 40.24

4.2.30. Retention of own seed Generally seed contributes more than half of the variable cost of potato cultivation and own seed provides big financial relief to potato farmers. Only 21% respondents retained some seed potato from own crop (Table 19). Seed plot technique (a scientific seed-potato production technique invented by CPRI) was the most commonly used method of producing own seed followed by separate plot (without adopting the recommended practices) for producing seed, selecting best looking plants and selecting small sized tubers from the produce.

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

Potato growers

A. Farmers using own seed

Marginal 11.11

Small 0.00

Medium 31.25

Large 43.75

All 20.90

Separate seed plot

50.00

0.00

40.00

14.29

28.57

Best looking plant Small tubers

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 20.00

28.57 14.29

14.29 14.29

Seed plot technique

50.00

0.00

40.00

42.85

42.86

B. Method#

# = % of responses out of own seed using farmers

4.2.31. Price satisfaction Only 17% respondents were satisfied with the price they received (Table 20). Farmers’ nonsatisfaction over price they were getting was due to higher production followed by low potato exports to other countries, poor marketing infrastructure, higher production cost and market malpractices (Acharya and Agarwal, 1987). Respondents believe that minimum support price for potato followed by export promotion; improved marketing system and higher processing can ensure better prices to them. In India no minimum support price scheme exists for potato.

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

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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

Category of potato growers Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

22.22

0.00

18.75

25.00

16.67

Excess production

75.00

73.33

58.33

72.73

70.00

Market malpractices

16.67

20.00

16.67

9.09

16.00

Poor marketing infrastructure

33.33

13.33

8.33

27.27

20.00

Higher production cost

8.33

20.00

33.33

18.18

20.00

Less export

12.50

18.75

33.33

43.75

27.27

Price satisfaction Reasons of dissatisfaction (Multiple responses)

How to get right price (Multiple responses) Export promotion

20.00

25.00

50.00

55.56

35.42

Minimum Support Price

73.33

83.33

75.00

44.44

68.75

Higher processing proportion

--

8.33

16.67

11.11

4.17

Improved marketing system

26.67

16.67

13.33

11.11

17.91

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

4.2.32. Post Harvest Losses The harvest of potato crop in the area coincides with the onset of summer. On an average postharvest losses were highest at the stage of sorting and re-filling (after cold storage) followed by losses at harvesting stage and then the first time bag filling at household/ farm level (Table 21). Potato is cold stored between April and December months in the study area. Before putting potato in cold stores, farmers store them in heaps for 15 days to two months depending upon the ongoing market prices. The purposes of heap storage are curing skin of potato; exploring opportunity of right selling price to save cold storage charges; and preparing potato tubers for better processing. Cut/ cracked tubers, green tubers and rotting were the main sources of postharvest losses at all the stages.

34

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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

Potato growers

Harvesting method Bullock Mechanical PHL at Harvesting (%) % responses

Cut/Crack Green Rotting

PHL at bag filling loss (%) % responses

Crack Green Rotting

PHL after cold storage (%) % responses

Green Rotting Weight loss

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All

100.00 0.00 4.22 100.00 14.29 50.00 3.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 5.67 0.00 100.00 50.00

100.00 0.00 5.12 100.00 28.57 35.71 3.22 25.00 50.0 50.0 7.00 33.33 33.33 33.33

62.5 37.5 4.28 100.00 30.37 38.46 3.81 50.00 66.67 50.0 6.83 25.00 75.00 25.00

31.25 68.75 4.833 100.00 10.00 30.00 5.79 40.00 80.00 20.00 3.88 20.00 60.00 40.00

74.63 25.37 4.66 100.00 21.57 39.22 3.50 33.33 57.14 42.85 6.30 21.43 64.29 35.71

4.2.33. Level of mechanisation Mechanisation is very important in modern potato cultivation. However, in the study area it was less than absolute due to small holdings, availability of cheap labour and lack of funds. Absolute mechanisation in the preceding sentence refers to 100% mechanisation in four important field operations, viz., field preparation, planting, earthing up and potato digging. Mechanisation index was high in case of field preparation and potato planting (Table 22). The index was relatively low in case of earthing up and digging which were done with the help of bullocks (partial mechanisation).

4.2.34. Capacity building Trainings were imparted to the farmers by state government through horticulture department or state agricultural universities. Nearly 23% potato farmers got some kind of training in the field of agriculture (Table 23). Still higher number of respondents believe they need to be trained on technical know how of agriculture and how to use various government schemes in the field of agriculture.

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 22. Level of mechanization (% of responses) Particulars

Potato growers Marginal 0.833

Small 0.735

Medium 0.833

Large 0.938

All 0.802

Total mechanization

77.78

64.71

80.00

93.33

78.46

Partial

22.22

35.39

20.00

6.67

21.54

No mechanization

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Field preparation (mechanization index; 0-1)

Planting (mechanization index; 0-1 )

0.889

0.941

1.00

1.00

0.943

Total mechanization

83.33

88.24

100.00

100.00

92.42

Partial

11.11

11.76

0.00

0.00

6.06 1.52

No mechanization Earthing up (mechanization index, 0-1 ) Total mechanization Partial

5.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.528

0.558

0.667

0.600

0.575

5.56

11.76

33.33

20.00

16.92

94.44

88.24

66.67

80.00

83.08

0.00 0.528

0.00 0.529

0.00 0.600

0.00 0.844

0.00 0.571

Total mechanization

11.11

5.88

33.33

81.25

31.82

Partial

83.33

94.12

53.33

6.25

60.61

No mechanization

5.56

0.00

13.33

12.5

7.58

No mechanization Digging (mechanization index, 0-1 )

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

Potato growers

Got training

Marginal 21.43

Small 18.19

Medium 30.00

Large 23.08

All 22.92

Gap in technical knowledge

18.75

41.67

23.08

33.33

29.63

Technical know how

100.00

85.71

85.71

100.00

92.59

Govt. Scheme

--

28.57

28.57

--

14.81

Areas#

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

36

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

•

8.

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

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’ nonsatisfaction 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

â&#x20AC;˘

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. Agroclimatically 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 â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

â&#x20AC;˘

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 1. Computation of various indices used in the study Sr. 1

Index Labour participation

Range 0 to 1

2 3

0 to 1 0 to 1

4 5

Soil testing Action taken on soil report Green manuring Level of mechanization

6

Education

7

Priority index of varietal attributes

0 to 1 0 to 1 1-5 0-100

Description No worker = 0; part time worker = 0.5; and full time worker = 1 Not tested = 0; and tested =1 No action = 0; and action taken = 1 Not adopted = 0; and adopted = 1 No mechanization = 0; partial mechanization = 0.5; and complete mechanization = 1 Illiterate = 1; 7 years of schooling = 2; secondary = 3; secondary specialized = 4; and higher education = 5 Multiple responses were assigned weights (1st response = equal weight; 2nd and 3rd responses = half weight; subsequent responses = one-fourth weight) The figure so obtained was converted equivalent to % multiple responses.

Annex 2. Priority indices for breeding new potato varieties (Multiple responses) Top 10 breeding priorities 1. Heat tolerant** 2. High yield***

Category of potato growers

% importance

Marginal 100.00 56.25

Small 68.75 100.00

Medium 100.00 93.75

Large 100.00 37.50

All 92.19 71.88

31.25

43.75

25.00

93.50

48.43

25.00 31.25

31.25 37.50

43.75 37.50

56.25 37.50

39.06 35.94

11.78 9.50 8.75

18.75 6.25 18.75 18.75 18.75

37.50 6.25 12.50 18.75 12.50

25.00 37.50 31.25 37.50 12.50

37.50 68.75 50.00 12.50 12.50

29.69 29.69 28.13 21.88 14.06

7.22 7.22 6.84 5.32 3.42

22.43 17.49

3.Resistant to late blight*** 4. Resistance to PTM*** 5.Large and uniform tubers 6. Drought tolerant** 7. Fit for processing*** 8. Early maturing*** 9. Shining skin*** 10. Good storability

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 â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

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

Age (years) Education (1-5) Largest Primary Occupation (%) Gender (%) 1.Male 2. Female Labour Participation (%)

Marginal

Category Potato growers Small Medium Large All

52.11 2.89

52.65 3.47

51.50 3.75

44.00 4.06

Farming (77.78)

Farming (94.12)

Farming (87.50)

100.00 0.00 72

100.00 0.00 74

100.00 0.00 84

Noncultivators

Overall

51.33 3.42

Nonpotato growers 48.17 3.33

45.90 1.85

48.23 2.55

Farming (93.75)

Farming (87.95)

Farming (83.33)

Labour (80.00)

Farming (50.50) Labour (43.76)

100.00 0.00 78

100.00 0.00 77

100.00 0.00 83

95.00 5.00 00

98.92 1.08 35

Annex 4. Net Annual Income of sampled households (INR ‘000) Particulars

Category Potato growers Marginal

Agriculture 1. Crops (including potato) 2. Dairy 3. Potato Salary/remittances Other non-farm income Total Per capita net income % potato contribution In crop income In total income

44

A S S E S S I N G

Small

Medium

Large

All

Nonpotato growers

Noncultivators

Overall

93.239

143.876

252.64

682.792

199.004

47.844

0.000

80.852

41.552 16.235 21.667 2.889

42.391 44.026 8.471 0.000

37.875 99.454 29.375 0.000

33.780 320.731 0.000 6.250

40.460 71.722 15.852 1.400

16.378 0.00 20.000 16.333

12.884 0.00 1.750 27.848

23.895 28.079 8.393 16.786

159.346 29.578

194.737 37.497

319.890 52.275

722.822 116.237

256.717 45.172

100.555 15.733

42.483 8.943

129.927 23.544

17.41 10.19

30.60 22.61

39.37 31.09

46.97 44.37

36.04 27.94

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

11.74 21.61

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

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

Category Potato growers Small Medium Large

Motorcycle (No.) Car (No.) Pick-Up/Utility (No.)

0.72 0.06 0.06

0.88 0.06 0.00

1.13 0.25 0.62

1.75 0.94 0.06

0.96 0.17 0.04

Nonpotato growers 0.50 0.00 0.17

Cycle (No.) House condition (1-5) Food grain storage (%) Tin container Sacks

0.00 4.06

0.00 4.53

0.13 4.50

0.00 4.50

0.03 4.38

0.33 2.67

0.30 1.80

0.19 3.72

72.22 27.78

86.67 13.33

93.33 6.67

100.0 0.00

87.30 12.70

100.00 0.00

63.16 36.84

82.95 17.05

83.33 94.44 88.89

100.0 100.00 100.00

100.00 100.00 100.00

100.00 100.00 100.00

92.54 98.51 97.01

83.33 100.00 100.00

65.00 50.00 70.00

84.02 88.17 91.40

70.59 29.41 0.00 58.82 0.00 0.000

88.24 11.76 0.00 75.00 0.00 0.000

87.5 12.5 0.00 62.5 0.00 0.000

81.25 18.75 0.00 86.67 0.00 0.000

81.82 18.18 0.00 70.31 0.00 0.000

50.00 16.67 33.33 16.67 0.00 0.000

0.00 25.00 75.00 5.00 10.0 0.350

61.95 19.57 18.48 52.22 2.56 0.075

69.23 30.77

53.33 46.67

46.15 53.85

30.77 69.23

50.00 50.00

83.33 16.67

92.86 7.14

60.81 39.19

3222.22

3678.57

6000.00

4901.64

2833.33

1910.53

4096.51

Children education

1300.00

1507.14

2579.17

1987.0

976.67

788.462

1673.33

Travel

1017.19

1257.14

1306.25

1602.87

1040.00

400.00

1322.59

880.0

796.56

1298.67

1390.25

833.33

300.00

1176.95

6419.41

7239.42

11184.1

8629.1

5683.33

3398.99

7184.52

Cooking gas (%) TV (%) DTH TV (%)

77.78 76.47 37.50

100.0 94.12 52.94

100.0 93.75 62.50

7107.1 4 2641.6 7 2866.6 7 2815.3 8 15430.

9 100.0 100.00 62.50

93.94 75.76 53.85

66.67 66.67 16.67

0.00 25.00 5.26

72.53 64.13 41.11

Landline (%) Mobile (%) Internet (%) Water purifier (%) Members using email/ family

61.11 83.33 0.00 5.56 0.06

56.25 88.24 5.88 5.88 0.06

68.75 87.5 0.00 12.5 0.19

100 100 25.00 37.5 0.44

71.21 89.55 7.46 14.93 0.12

16.67 100.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 47.37 0.00 5.26 0.30

52.75 81.52 3.49 11.96 0.21

Marginal

Nutritional security (%) Water connection (%) Electrification (%) Sanitation (%) Flush toilet Temporary toilet Open field Social participation (%) Migration rate (%) Per family migration (No.) School type of children (%) Government Private Monthly expenditure (INR) Food

Bills Total

All

Noncultivators

Overall

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.41 0.07 0.02

Annex 6. Potato status in major producer states of India Sr. No.

State

Area (‘000ha) 2000-01* 2007-08* 425.4 473.1 311.3 387.7 170.0 148.7 71.3 76.3 978.0 1085.8 31.9 53.3 1290.6 1478.9

Production (‘000 tonne) 2000-01* 2007-08* 9466.6 10443.3 7281.7 7471.8 1605.4 1204.6 1424.6 1307.8 19778.2 20427.5 705.9 1405.3 23488.9 24822.2

1.

Uttar Pradesh 2.

West Bengal 3.

Bihar 4.

Punjab 5.

Total (1to4) 6.

Gujarat 7.

All India Note:* = Triennium ending year.

Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 2009.

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

Yield (tonne/ha) 2000-01* 2007-08* 22.3 22.1 23.4 19.4 09.4 08.1 20.0 17.1 20.2 18.8 22.1 26.7 18.2 16.8

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

1.

Household information

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

Gender

Age

Education level

Primary occupation

Secondary occupation

Labour participation

Occupation 1. Farming 2. Salaried job 3. Business 4. Home management 5. Student 6. Other (specify)_____

Labour participation (during production season) 1. Full time worker 2. Part time worker 3. Not a worker 4. Other (specify)__

1.Respondent (_________) 2.

3.

4.

CODES Gender 1.

Male 2. Female

Education level 1.

None 2.

Primary (≤ 7 years) 3.

Secondary 4.

Secondary specialized 5.

Higher education

Relationship with head 1.

Self 2.

Spouse 3.

Child 4.

Parent 5.

Other relatives 6.

Other (specify)_________

2.

Land use pattern Land holding (mention conversion factor if unit is not standard; check if Acre is standard one) (1 ha= _______ big ha/ ________) a)

Agricultural land

Owned

Irrigated

Rented in

Irrigated

Rented out

Irrigated

Self cultivated

Irrigated

Un-irrigated Un-irrigated Un-irrigated Un-irrigated b)

Potato cultivation

Irrigated Un-irrigated Total

c)

Un-cultivable land

46

A S S E S S I N G

Owned (specify use)

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

3.

â&#x20AC;˘

S O C I A L

S C I E N C E S

W O R K I N G

Buffaloes

Goats

Sheep

Poultry

Horse/ donkey

4.

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

Do you have?

No. owned 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)______________

Other (specify)________

Type

5.

Crops grown a) What is the total area grown under each type of crop last year (2008-09) Crop Acres planted Codes Crops grown 1.

Potatoes 2.

Maize 3.

Cotton 4.

Wheat 5.

Tomatoes 6.

Suran (Jamikand/ Elephant foot) 7.

Groundnut 8.

Cabbage 6.

2 0 1 0 - 2

Livestock owned (No.)

Cattle (cow/ bullocks)

a)

P A P E R

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Onions Melon/watermelon Peas Caster Fodder Other (specify)______

Potato plots

Growing potatoes for ________ years

b) No. of potato crops you take in a year?___________ Number of fields on which potato was cultivated 2007-08 Rabi

Kharif/ spring

2008-09 Rabi

Kharif/ spring

Rabi = Winter crop Kharif = Summer/ rainy season crop

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

(Use the box on right side)

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

F A R M E R S â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

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

7.

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

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

a)

Have you ever got your soil tested?

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?

h)

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

i)

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

1=Yes

2=No (√)

Neutral/ Acidic/ Basic (√)

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

8.

Area under green manuring _____________

Irrigation status (overall)

a)

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

b)

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

c)

What is quality of your irrigation water?

d)

If bad/ very bad explain why _______________________________________________________________________

e)

Availability of irrigation water?

f)

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

g)

Do you purchase/ sell water?

Good/ Bad/ Very bad (√)

Adequate/ Less/ Scarce

1=Yes

2=No (√).

(√)

Price (with unit) if purchase/sell

_______________________

h)

Irrigation investment

Irrigation system

Area covered (Unit_________)

Year

Investment Rs.

Maintenance cost# Rs./ year

Running cost# 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

9.

•

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

Potato production a)

Year & season

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

Plot #

Variety grown

Area (_____)

Seed use

Source of seed Quantity (qt)

Price (Rs/ qt)

Production

Seed size

Quantity (qt)

Cut=1 Whole=2

2007-08 (Main)

Second crop

2008-09 (Main)

Second crop Varieties grown 1.

K. Badshah 2.

K. Lauvkar 3.

K. Pukhraj 4.

K. Chip-1 5.

K. Chip-3 6.

K. Surya 7.

Lady Rosetta 8.

Shepody 9.

Kennebec 10. Atlantic 11. Other (___________

b) Variety grown

Year first grown

Seed source 1.

Own 2.

Neighbour (untrained) 3.

Market trader 4.

Commercial trained seed grower (Gujarat) 5.

Seed grower association(specify)__________ 6.

Seed potato companies 7.

Govt. farms 8.

Direct from Punjab or UP 9.

Other (specify)_________

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

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

Seed Seed replacement Seed source Codes source first After how many What was the 1 Own Varieties grown time years? last seed 2 Neighbour (untrained) source?

1 K. Badshah 3 Market trader 2 K. Lauvkar 4 Commercial seed grower/ 3 K. Pukhraj trained farmer 4 K. Chip-1 5 Seed grower association 5 K. Chip-3 (________ 6 K. Surya 6 Chambal Agritech/ technico 7 Lady Rosetta 7 Govt. farms 8 Shepody 8 Other (specify)_________ 9 Kennebec 10 Atlantic 11 Other (_______

c)

Name the varieties you want to grow if seed is available ______________________________________________

d)

What is your principal method of retaining seed for your own next year use?

1 2

I grow seed in a separate seed plot

1=Yes

2=No

(√)

I select the best looking plants and select their tubers for seed (positive selection) 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

1=Yes

A B I O T I C

2=No

S T R E S S E S

(√) 49

C I P

•

3 4 5

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

I sort out the small tubers from the overall harvest

1=Yes

2=No

(√)

Use proper seed plot technique

1=Yes

2=No

(√)

Other (Specify)____________________________________________________________________________

10. Varietal preference

a)

Before these varieties (listed above), what old varieties did you grow and main reasons for abandoning them?

Varieties abandoned

i.

Reasons for abandoning

___________________________ __________________________________________________ __

ii.

____________________________ __________________________________________________ __

iii.

____________________________ __________________________________________________ __

b)

Do you have problems getting high quality seeds?

1=Yes

2=No

(√);

If yes, what are the

problems?

c)

i.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ii.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

iii.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

For each variety grown indicate the good and bad qualities if any, starting with the most important:

Variety

Good qualities Most important

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

50

A S S E S S I N G

P O T A T O

2nd important

Bad qualities 3rd Important

Most important

Good qualities 1.

Shining skin 2.

Skin colour other than white 3.

High yielding 4.

Heat tolerant 5.

Resistant to late blight 6.

Early maturing 7.

Long dormancy period 8.

Desirable tuber size 9.

Drought tolerant/ resistant 10. Easy availability of clean seed 11. Good storability (traditional and cold storage) 12. Higher prices of produce 13. Very tasty and good texture 14. Good for processing 15. Other (specify)___________ F A R M E R S ’

P E R C E P T I O N S

O N

2nd important

3rd Important

Bad qualities 1. Dull skin colour 2. Bad tuber shape 3. Low yielding 4. Susceptible to heat 5. Susceptible to Late Blight 6. Late maturing 7. Short dormancy 8. More tubers of undesirable size 9. Drought susceptible 10. Un-availability of clean seed 11. Bad storability (traditional and cold storage) 12. Lower prices of produce 13. Bland taste and bad texture 14. Unfit for processing 15. Other (specify)______________

A B I O T I C

S T R E S S E S

C I P

d)

•

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

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________

ii.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

iii.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

iv.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

e)

Is drought a problem to you in potato production?

1= Yes

2= No 3=don’t know

(√)

f)

Is heat a problem to you in potato production?

1= Yes

2= No 3=don’t know

(√)

g)

Are you aware of variety differences in level of tolerance to drought/heat?

h)

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

1=Yes

i.__________________

2=No

(√)

___________

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

11. Potato marketing a) Have you sold potatoes at any time in the last 2 years?

1=Yes

2=No (√). If no; why ____________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________ b)

Please, give details of marketing for each of the varieties grown

Year and season

Variety

Sold to whom?

Quantity sold (qt)

Price/ qt (Rs)

Home consumption (qt)

Kept for seed (qt)

Who makes sell decision?

Waste or fed to animals (qt)

2007-08

2008-09

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

Sell decision 1.

Wife 2.

Husband 3.

Both 4.

Brother 5.

Father 6.

Uncle 7.

Others (specify)__________

To whom potato was sold 1.

Local market 2.

Distant market 3.

Middlemen’s agent at farm 4.

Private trader at farm (specify)__________ 5.

Direct to retailer/ consumer 6.

Other (specify)___________

12. Other marketing details a)

You did automatic grading, cleaning, packing this year? 1=Yes

b)

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

2=No (√)

(________%) c)

1=Yes d)

1=Yes

Have you got own machine for grading:

2=No;

cleaning: 1=Yes

2=No;

packing:

2=No (√)

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

e)

Do you regularly sell to 1 or 2 same buyers?

f)

How do you get payment?

g)

Do you get spot or delayed payment?

1=Yes

2=No

(√)

Cash/ cheque/ other (_____________) (√)

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?

k)

If

no,

what

are

the

1=Yes reasons

2=No (√)

for

____________________________________________________________

low

prices? 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

i)

C I P

l)

•

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

What can be done to get right price __________________________________________________________________ 13.

Marketing problems

a)

Did you have any marketing problems?

b)

If yes, indicate the major marketing problems, starting with the most important

Year and season

1=Yes

Marketing problems 3nd important 2nd important

Variety Most important

2007-08

2008-09

Varieties grown 1.

K. Badshah 2.

K. Lauvkar 3.

K. Pukhraj 4.

K. Chip-1 5.

K. Chip-3 6.

K. Surya 7.

Lady Rosetta 8.

Shepody 9.

Kennebec 10. Atlantic 11.

14.

2=No (√) Marketing problems 1. Low prices 2. Long distance to market 3. Market intelligence 4. Market malpractices 5. Payment delays 6. Costly transportation 7. Small quantity for sale

Other (________

8.

Other (_____________

Assessment of post harvest losses

a)

Harvesting method?

b)

Post harvest losses at

i.

Manual/ bullocks/ mechanical (√).

Harvesting

___________%,

reasons

___________________________

ii.

Bag filling after heaps/ room storage

___________%,

reasons

___________%,

reasons

___________________________

iii.

Sorting after cold storage ___________________________

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

15.

Contract farming

a)

Are you engaged in potato contract farming (CF)?

b)

If yes, since when? ____________________________________________________________________________

1=Yes

2=No (√)

c)

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

d)

Mechanism of pre-fixation of potato price? ___________________________________________________________

e)

Your contract farming experience. __________________________________________________________________

ii) ___________________________________________iii) _________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

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

f)

•

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

Details on contract farming

Company name

Focus

Area Unit(___) 06-07 07-08

Potato quantity (qt) Produced (under CF) Accepted 06-07 07-08 06-07 07-08

Rejection reasons

1.

2.

3.

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

16.

Future trading

a)

Do you know what is potato future trading?

1=Yes

2=No (√)

b)

If yes, have you ever participated in future markets?

1=Yes

2=No (√)

c)

If yes, in which year and how many times?

d)

Your experiences in future markets _________________________________________________________________

st

1 year ____________________;

No.

of

times

_______________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________

17. a)

Crop insurance

Is potato crop insurance available in your area?

b)

If yes, have you adopted it?

c)

If yes, what is insurance mechanism?

d)

Your experiences in potato crop insurance

1=Yes

2=No (√) 1=Yes

2=No (√)

__________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 18.

Level of mechanisation

Activity

Mechanisation level

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

Comments, if any

Field preparation Planting Earthing up Digging

mechanisation

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

19.

•

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

Sources of technical knowledge on potato (MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

Source

New inputs

1.

Friends

2.

Group discussions

3.

Market middlemen

4.

Govt.

Input prices/ availability

National/ local potato prices

Weather forecast

Policies influencing potato

Alternative occupation

extension

worker 5.

Radio/ Television

6.

Newspapers/ periodicals

7.

Emails/ Internet

8.

Input seller

9.

Farmer fair/ meetings etc.

10.

Field demonstrations

11.

Private companies

12.

Other (______________)

a)

Do you feel some information is still not reaching you?

b)

If yes, list the areas _____________________________________________________________________________

1=Yes

2=No (√)

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

20. a)

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

Agricultural credit

Have you received any agricultural credit for farm production in the last 2 years?

2=No (√).

If yes, explain in the following table (last two years):

b)

Source of finance

When given

3 4 5 6

Source of finance 1 Cooperative society 2 Moneylender

Loan duration (months)

Amount of loan (Rs)

1=Yes

Kind of guarantee

Interest rate (%/year)

Friends Relatives Personal loan (bank) Agri-loan (bank)

c)

Whether loan was used for the same purpose?

7 8.

1=Yes

Purpose of loan

Kisan credit card Other (___________)

2=No (√)

d)

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

e)

Facing any problem in loan repayment?

f)

If yes, explain ________________________________________________________________________________

g)

Do you take fresh loan to repay old loan?

21. a)

1=Yes

1=Yes

2=No (√)

2=No (√)

Standard of living and poverty

House condition (judge) (Score 1 to 5) ______________

Code 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Description of house condition Hut with thatch on wooden supports Small house with earthen walls without toilet, bathroom and kitchen House with kitchen but without toilet Medium sized cemented, multi-room house with kitchen and toilet Big cemented, multi-room house with kitchen, toilet and open space around

Worth <Rs 20000 <Rs 50000 <Rs 1lakh <Rs 5 lakh ≥ Rs 5 lakh

b)

Food grain storage system ___________________________________________________________________

c)

Nutritional security (judge)

1=Yes

2=No (√)

d)

Individual water connection

1=Yes

2=No (√);

e)

House electrification

f)

Sanitation:

Flush toilet/ temporary toilet/ open field

g)

TV

1=Yes

h)

Social participation at least one organisation

1=Yes

2=No (√)

i)

Migration to outside the village only for seeking labour work

1=Yes

2=No (√)

j)

How many members migrated?

2008-09_________________

k)

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

1=Yes

2=No (√) (√)

2=No (√)

2007-08_________________

___________________________________ l)

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

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

____________________________________ 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

m)

Cooking gas (LPG) use

1=Yes

n)

DTH TV

o)

Telephone (landline)

1=Yes 1=Yes

•

S O C I A L

P A P E R

2 0 1 0 - 2

2=No (√)

2=No (√);

p)

Mobile (≥ one)

q)

Internet at home

r)

Home water purifier

s)

Family members using email (No.) _________________________

22.

W O R K I N G

2=No (√); 1=Yes

2=No (√) 1=Yes

1=Yes

S C I E N C E S

2=No (√);

2=No (√)

Income and development indicators

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

Source 1 Total crop sales (potato and other crops) 2

Sales of animals or animal products

3

Other farm income (__________________)

4

Salaries, gifts and remittances

5

Other non-farm income (___________________)

23.

Gross Income or Value (Rs)

Farmers’ perception on potential yield of potato

Do you think your potato yield can further increase

1=Yes

2=No (√)

If yes, what are the factors that can increase yield Factor

1=Yes; 2=No

1.

Sufficient irrigation water

2.

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

3.

High yielding potato varieties

4.

Water saving potato production technology

5.

Drought resistant/ tolerant potato varieties

6.

Heat tolerant potato varieties

7.

Higher doses of fertilizers

8.

Proper weed control

9.

Right insect/ pest control

10.

Right late blight management

11.

Right control of other diseases

12.

Right quality and timely availability of pesticides

13.

Right quality and timely availability of fertilisers

14.

Availability of adequate funds

15.

Cheaper machinery

16.

Low prices of inputs

17.

Improvement in agricultural extension services

18.

Other (__________________)

Importance (1 (low) to 5 (high))

Close the interview with THANKS to the respondent 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

57

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

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

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

International Potato Center Apartado 1558 Lima 12, Perú • Tel 51 1 349 6017 • Fax 51 1 349 5326 • email cip@cgiar.org