Seed Potato Production

Agronomic strategies for enhancing seed potato production

Harmanjeet Singh

L-2013-A-02-M

Introduction

• Major non-cereal food crop, ranks 4th in

production in the world after wheat, maize and

rice.

• Originated in Andean region i.e. Southern Peru

and Bolivia where it is domesticated 7000-

10000 year ago.

• Europeans introduced potato in India during

late 16th century or early 17th century

• The Great Famine, due to blight in the 1845

which resulted in 1 million Irish people dying

and another 1 million migrating.

•Family Solanaceae

•Important cultivated species

Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum

Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena

•2n= 48, tetraploid

•Cross pollinated

•About 60 cm high culm

•Green cherry fruits (300 seed in each)

•Potato stolons: lateral stems grow horizontally

•Potato tubers: modified stem, initiation of

young tubers at the tip of stolons at 35-40 DAP,

process called tuberization.

•Minute scale leaves with buds (eyes) Stolon Tuber

Taxonomy & Morphology

Fruit

Flower

Area, Production & Productivity

World

Total Production = 368.1 m t

China = 88.9 m t

India = 44.31 m t

Russia = 30.2 m t

India

Area = 2.02 m ha

Production = 44.31 m t

Productivity = 219.6 q/ha

Punjab

Area = 85250 ha

Production = 2.13 m t

Productivity = 249.8 q/ha Source: FAO, 2013-14

www.indiastat.com

1/3 of total produced by

China and India.

Major potato producing states:

U.P., W.B., Bihar, Punjab, Haryana

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1949-50 1959-60 1969-70 1979-80 1989-90 1999-00 2003-04 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Area (Lakh ha)

Production (mt)

Yield (t/ha)

Increase in area, production and productivity of Potato in India

(1949/50 – 2012-13)

www.indiastat.com

Current Scenario

India is producing 45.34 m tons (2012-13) from 1.99 m ha at an average productivity of 21.9 t/ha.

2.96 m tons (8.5%) of the produce is used as seed.

2.8 m tons (7.5%) of the produce is processed.

0.1 m tons are exported

Post harvest losses are nearly 16% of the total produce.

www.indiastat.com

Potato Research in India

Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla (CPRI)

established in 1949

It has 7 research centres

• CPRIC, Modipuram, Meerut (UP)

• CPRS, Jalandhar (Punjab)

• CPRS, Gwalior (MP)

• CPRS, Patna (Bihar)

• CPRS, Kufri-Fagu, Shimla (HP)

• CPRS, Udagamandalam (Tamilnadu)

• CPRS, Shillong (Meghlaya)

All India Coordinated Reseaech Project Potato (AICRP),1970 has headquarter at CPRI, Shimla has a nationwide network of 25 centers (7 CPRI based centers, 17 SAU based centers and 1 Voluntary center)

Sexual

True potato Seed (TPS)

Asexual

Micro-propagation

Meristem culture

Seed potato

Tuber indexing

Microtubers: 50-60% survival

Field multiplication-1 Field multiplication-2 Basic or Breeder Seed

Microplants

Microtubers Minitubers

Culturing in liquid media Microtuber in vitro

Micro Propagation

VIRUSES

Potato Virus X Potato Virus S Potato Virus M

Potato Virus Y Potato Leaf Roll Virus Potato Virus A

Tuber Indexing by ELISA

Clonal field multiplication

100 x 100 cm, 100% tested, individual

harvest

STAGE - I STAGE - II

Separate clones in rows in field

100 x 20 cm; rogue; 100% tested in

composite sample; bulk harvest

Breeder seed Stage III and IV, 60X20 cm,

rogue, bulk harvested

SYSTEM OF SEED PRODUCTION

Tuber selection and indexing (Nucleus seed)

Nucleus seed

True Potato Seed (TPS)

True Potato Seed (TPS) can be used in 3 ways:-

1. Direct seeding of TPS in the field

2. Transplanting TPS derived seedlings

3. Planting seedling tubers raised from TPS

Problems: 1. Low germination %age

2. Heavy weed problems

3. Slow growth of plants

4. Dormancy period of 4-6 months

5. Isolation: 50m

SEED POTATO

Potato tuber of definite size are used

for further multiplication

Should be free from all viral diseases

Should not have been grown in areas

where wart, cyst nematode and other

quarantine diseases are endemic

Should be either free from soil and

tuber borne diseases or carry them

within permissible limits

Should be of proper physiological age

Advantages

• Seed has a high % germination

• Crop has a better rate of

establishment

• Seed has a higher yield

• Seed is true to type

• Fewer pests and diseases

• Easier to market the crop

• Quite expensive

•Isolation required

•Non availability

•Transportation

•Lack of awareness

•Requirement non-infested field

from pathogens

Disadvantages

Certified seed

General Seed Certification Standards for Seed

Potato

I. Classification :

1. Hill Seed (HS): 2500 m ASL

2. Plains seed (PS): where low aphid infestation during the crop growing season

II. Land Requirements : not infested with wart , cyst forming nematodes, brown

rot within the previous 3 years or common scab.

III. Field Inspection: Minimum 4 inspections :

First inspection:

In the hills- 45 DAP

In Plains- 35 DAP

Second inspection: 60-70 DAP

Third inspection: Immediately after haulms cutting/destruction

Fourth inspection:10 days after haulms cutting/destruction

IV. Isolation: 5 m for FS and CS

Seed Standards for seed potato

Size Mean length and two widths at the

middle of tuber

Corresponding weight

Hill seed (HS)

Seed size 30mm-60mm 25-150gm

Large size above 60mm above 150gm

Plains seed (HS)

Small size 30 mm- 55 mm

25-125gm

Large size above 55 mm above 125 gm

1. Size based on mean length or weight

2. Permissible limit for non seed size tuber <5.0% (by number)

3. Cut, cracked tubers < 1.0% (by weight.)

4. Greenish pigmentation allowed

Shift from hills to plains Before 1970

Seed production shifted from the hills to the northern plains to cater to the large demand of seed.

Hill seed may not of right physiological age for use in the plains

Hill soils may carries soil borne pathogens due to continuous potato production, which often not found in the plains

Long distance transport

Area in hills is insufficient for seed production

APHID POPULATION

BUILDUP IN SUB-TROPICS

COMPONENTS OF SEED PLOT TECHNIQUE

Systemic granular insecticide at planting/earthing

Removal of off types & diseased plants

1-2 sprays of systemic insecticide + Metalaxyl-Mancozeb in Dec- Jan

Crop rotation 2-3 yrs

Tuber treatment- boric acid

Source: Seed potato production manual

CPRI,Shimla

IMPACT OF SEED PLOT TECHNIQUE

CPRI produce =2550 t Breeder seed/year

CPRI give =2000 t to NSC or SSCs

Saving US $ in million annually on seed import

India is the only Asian country with a well established, scientific seed production programme.

2000 t Breeder Seed

12000 t Foundation seed

(Stage- I)

72000 t Foundation seed

(Stage- II)

432000 t or 0.43 mt Certified seed (Stage- I)

Seed requirement of country

= 1.99 m ha X 3.0 t/ha

= 5.97 m t

Solution: Farmer can own seed with suitable

agronomic strategies, free from virus and

diseases

Multiplication rate 6 times

Different Agronomic practices involved in production

of quality seed potato

1. Seed treatment (Growth regulator, Microbial)

2. Seed rate

3. Seed size

4. Spacing

5. Method of planting

6. Inter-culture (Earthing up etc.)

7. Irrigation

8. Fertilizer management

9. Weed management

10.Haulm cutting

Treatment Germination %age No. of sprouts/ plant Plant Height

Control

Whole tuber

Cut tuber

Cut + Incised

Thiourea @ 0.25%

Whole tuber

Cut tuber

Cut + Incised

Thiourea @ 0.50%

Whole tuber

Cut tuber

Cut + Incised

GA3 @ 2 ppm

Whole tuber

Cut tuber

Cut + Incised

GA3 @ 5 ppm

Whole tuber

Cut tuber

Cut + Incised

CD (p=0.05)

88.8

91.7

93.1

92.4

95.5

98.0

94.2

96.6

98.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1.47

2.9

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.7

5.1

4.2

4.5

4.2

4.6

5.2

6.1

4.0

4.8

5.6

0.55

26.0

26.4

26.1

28.2

30.5

30.1

29.4

30.7

30.2

30.4

32.0

32.9

31.6

34.6

35.9

1.82

Table 1: Effect of mechanical and chemical treatment on germination, no. of sprouts/

plant and plant height

Mohan (1993), PAU, Ludhiana

M.Sc. Thesis Pp: 36

Table 2: Effect of foliar spray of PGRs on growth characters, graded tuber

number and yield of potato (pooled data of two years)

Treatment Grade wise no. of tubers

(lakh/ha)

Grade wise tubers yield (q/ha) Total

tuber yield

(q/ha) <25g 25-75g >75g <25g 25-75g >75g

GA3 @200 ppm 1.14 2.72 1.98 1.60 13.7 21.7 37.0

NAA @50 ppm 1.02 2.64 1.60 1.52 13.8 19.3 34.6

MC @150 ppm 0.76 1.86 2.15 1.14 8.6 23.9 33.6

TIBA 50 ppm 0.82 2.06 2.00 1.33 9.8 23.0 34.1

Ethrel @250 ppm 1.08 2.30 2.11 1.72 11.0 22.3 35.0

2.4-D @1 ppm 0.78 1.78 2.14 1.05 8.2 21.9 31.2

Control 0.86 1.70 1.96 1.15 8.6 20.6 30.4

CD(p=0.05) 0.13 0.31 0.10 0.14 1.82 1.93 2.76

Birbal et al (2009), Gwalior, M.P.

Indian J Agril Sci 79(9): 684-6

Two Sprays at 25 & 50 DAP

Table 3: Effect of biofertilizers and nirogen levels on growth parameters, yield and nutrient uptake

Treatment Plant

height

(cm)

Stems/

m2

Tubers

/m2

Tuber

yield

(tonnes/

ha)

Total nutrients (kg/ha)

N P K

Microbial treatment

Control 36.7 31.3 52.8 195.5 73.2 6.53 75.6

Azotobacter 42.5 32.1 55.8 208.2 82.7 7.48 84.1

Phospho-inoculant

culture

45.8 33.7 56.5 208.9 81.9 8.96 83.2

Azotobacter + Phospho-

inoculant culture

47.3 34.2 59.8 225.3 89.6 9.78 91.7

CD(p=0.05) 7.2 NS NS 21.6 9.2 1.4 8.9

Nitrogen (kg/ha)

0 32.3 28.7 50.3 153.7 53.8 4.87 55.3

50 39.5 32.3 54.5 215.5 76.2 7.12 75.9

100 44.7 33.8 58.3 228.4 84.7 8.47 86.9

150 49.2 35.2 61.5 236.2 90.5 9.21 88.7

CD(p=0.05) 8.7 NS 6.8 25.3 8.7 2.3 10.5

Singh (2001), Meghalaya

Indian J Agron 46: 375-79 Interaction= NS

Table 4: Effect of biofertilizers and nitrogen levels on graded tuber yields, yield and net returns

Treatment Graded tuber yield (tonnes/ha) Tuber yield

(tonnes/ha)

Net Returns

(Rs/ha) >100 g 20-100g <20 g

Microbial treatment

Control 2.4 9.9 2.8 15.1 19948

Azotobacter 3.2 10.0 3.2 16.4 24548

Phospho-inoculant

culture

3.1 10.5 2.9 16.5 25048

Azotobacter + Phospho-

inoculant culture

3.5 11.1 3.1 17.7 29748

CD(p=0.05) 0.7 NS NS 1.3 -

Nitrogen (kg/ha)

0 1.6 7.9 2.8 12.3 8825

50 3.3 10.3 3.0 16.6 25690

100 3.5 11.4 3.2 18.1 30755

150 3.7 12.2 3.0 18.9 34020

CD(p=0.05) 0.4 0.6 NS 0.7 -

Singh (2001), Meghalaya

Indian J Agron 46: 375-79 Interaction= NS

Treatment Plant height (cm) No. of stems/hill Leaf area (cm2) Dry matter/plant

(g)

45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP

<20 g 36.9 49.6 1.58 2.54 31.4 45.9 10.4 48.1

21-30 g 37.4 51.2 1.89 2.87 33.4 47.4 11.8 52.1

31-40 g 37.9 54.6 2.67 3.69 35.3 48.7 13.4 58.3

41-50 g 39.1 55.3 3.07 4.10 36.7 51.1 15.4 61.8

51-60 g 39.8 56.6 3.81 4.42 38.1 52.8 16.7 66.1

CD

(p=0.05)

1.53 1.95 0.16 0.17 0.91 1.46 1.62 1.49

Table 5: Effect of seed tuber size on growth parameters

Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka)

Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50

Treatment Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Total tuber

yield/ha (t)

Grade <20 g Grade 21-50 g Grade >50g

Seed tuber size

<20 g 33.6 (13.8*) 122.0 (50.2) 87.4 (35.9) 12.8

21-30 g 30.3 (9.73) 157.0 (50.4) 124.1 (39.8) 16.5

31-40 g 23.7 (7.02) 182.0 (53.9) 132.0 (39.0) 17.6

41-50 g 19.2 (5.69) 171.0 (50.7) 146.9 (43.6) 17.8

51-60 g 14.5 (4.34) 118.0 (35.5) 200.5 (60.2) 17.9

CD (p=0.05) 0.83 3.76 8.05 0.70

Haulm killing date

60 DAP 25.1 (10.1) 136.0 (54.5) 88.0 (35.5) 13.2

70 DAP 26.7 (9.22) 143.0 (49.5) 120.0 (41.3) 15.3

80 DAP 23.6 (6.94) 159.0 (46.8) 157.0 (46.2) 17.9

90 DAP 21.7 (5.84) 163.0 (43.7) 188.0 (50.5) 19.7

CD (p=0.05) 0.75 3.36 7.20 0.63

Table 6: Effect of seed tuber size and date of haulm cutting on yield parameters

* Figures in bracket indicates the per cent distribution

of grade wise tuber yield per plant on weight basis Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka)

Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50

Treatment Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Total tuber

yield/ha (t) Grade <20 g Grade 21-50 g Grade >50g

S1 X 60 DAP

S1 X 70 DAP

S1 X 80 DAP

S1 X 90 DAP

S2 X 60 DAP

S2 X 70 DAP

S2 X 80 DAP

S2 X 90 DAP

S3 X 60 DAP

S3 X 70 DAP

S3 X 80 DAP

S3 X 90 DAP

S4 X 60 DAP

S4 X 70 DAP

S4 X 80 DAP

S4 X 90 DAP

S5 X 60 DAP

S4 X 70 DAP

S4 X 80 DAP

S4 X 90 DAP

CD (p=0.05)

34.04*

37.04

31.83

31.67

30.42

33.16

31.03

26.47

24.58

24.72

23.04

22.56

19.84

21.81

18.68

11.47

16.47

16.67

13.22

16.58

1.68

106.27

118.21

126.47

137.94

139.59

153.94

167.85

168.18

146.02

167.79

201.74

214.23

145.41

152.08

190.96

97.49

140.97

126.34

107.91

196.04

7.51

61.16

84.04

97.13

107.21

87.82

115.46

140.11

153.19

94.28

117.10

146.72

169.93

94.61

121.31

168.29

306.21

103.72

160.02

231.97

203.53

16.10

10.60

12.68

13.42

14.72

13.64

15.85

17.97

18.55

13.93

16.46

19.65

21.74

13.73

15.64

19.92

21.69

13.98

16.11

18.57

22.06

1.40

Table 7: Interaction effect of seed tuber size and date of haulm cutting on yield

* thousand tuber/ha Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka)

Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50 <20 g = S1 21-30 g = S2 31-40 g = S3 41-50 = S4 51-60 g = S5

Table 8: Effect of seed size and spacing on growth parameters and yield

Treatment Seed

Rate

(q/ha)

No. of

Sprouts

/ plant

Plant

height

(cm)

Tuber yield Total tuber

yield Large

>50mm

Medium

25-50 mm

Small

<25mm

25-45g + 10 cm 33.3 2.6 29.6 34.0 168.8 14.8 217.7

25-45g + 12.5 cm 26.6 3.0 31.5 48.8 142.2 18.6 209.9

25-45g + 15 cm 22.2 3.2 31.6 42.9 122.9 18.6 184.4

45-75g + 15 cm 50.0 5.0 32.1 94.2 186.6 32.5 313.3

45-75g + 17.5 cm 42.8 5.5 32.4 80.0 182.2 31.1 293.3

45-75g + 20 cm 37.5 5.6 33.4 75.5 174.8 28.1 278.4

>75g + 20 cm 62.5 5.6 33.3 89.3 203.0 24.8 317.0

>75g + 25 cm 50.0 5.7 33.8 84.4 173.3 35.5 271.1

>75g + 30 cm 41.6 5.8 35.9 81.4 155.5 34.0 248.8

LSD = 0.05 0.32 1.73 3.30 26.41 1.31 30.22

Mohan (1993), PAU (Ludhiana)

M.Sc. Thesis Pp: 46

Table 9: Effect of spacing, and date of haulm cutting on growth and

yield

Treatment Stems

/plant

Tuber no. (‘000/ha) Tuber yield (q/ha)

<10 g 10-40 g >40 g Total <10 g 10-40 g >40 g Total

Spacing (cm x cm)

50 X 10 4.57 449 573 61 1083 40 177 48 265

50 X 15 5.03

351 460 79 890 31 151 66 248

CD(p=0.05) 0.45 67 48 11 88 5 14 10 NS

Dehaulming

60 DAP 5.18 311 511 44 866 23 141 31 194

70 DAP 4.90 432 511 75 1017 40 166 62 268

80 DAP 4.32 457 528 91 1076 43 186 77 305

CD(p=0.05) 0.55 83 NS 13 108 6 17 12 25

Kumar et al (2001), Modipuram

Indian J Agric Sci 71: 658-60

Table 10: Effect of seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber

yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Jalandhar (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Total

yield

(t/ha)

Seed size Cost of

Cultivation ( x

103 Rs./ha)

Net returns

(x 103

Rs./ha)

B:C

ratio No.( x

103/ha)

Yield

(t/ha)

Row Spacing(cm)

60 X15 30.11 408.6 14.55 60.4 103.7 2.72

60 X10 31.22 564.6 16.81 78.2 97.1 2.24

CD(p=0.05) 0.76 17.4 0.68 - - -

Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha)

150+35+66 30.34 467.6 15.41 68.8 98.8 2.44

150+52+66 30.99 505.7 15.96 69.9 102.0 2.46

CD(p=0.05) NS 17.4 NS - - -

Haulm Cutting (DAP)

70 28.69 484.7 15.22 69.3 91.1 2.31

80 32.64 488.5 16.15 69.3 110.0 2.58

CD(p=0.05) 0.76 NS 0.68 - - -

Dua et al (2008), Jalandhar

Indian J Agron 53: 201-26


yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Faizabad (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Total

yield

(t/ha)

Seed size Cost of

Cultivation (x

103 Rs./ha)

Net returns

(x 103

Rs./ha)

B:C

ratio No.( x

103/ha)

Yield

(t/ha)

Row Spacing(cm)

60 X15 27.53 450.5 14.71 57.9 96.4 2.67

60 X10 28.49 494.8 15.87 75.7 85.9 2.14

CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.9 0.65 - - -


100+35+66 26.11 435.4 14.06 65.0 81.6 2.26

150+52+66 29.90 509.9 16.53 68.5 100.7 2.47

CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.1 0.61 - - -

Haulm Cutting (DAP)

70 25.67 439.3 14.06 66.8 78.1 2.17

80 30.35 505.9 16.53 66.8 104.2 2.56

CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.3 0.63 - - -

Dua et al (2008), Faizabad



yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Modipuram (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Total

yield

(t/ha)

Seed size Cost of

Cultivation (

x103 Rs./ha)

Net returns

(x103

Rs./ha)

B:C

ratio No.(

x103/ha)

Yield

(t/ha)

Row Spacing(cm)

60 X15 23.32 486.5 13.44 57.9 75.7 2.31

60 X10 25.80 597.0 16.45 75.7 76.9 2.02

CD(p=0.05) 1.30 47.74 1.46 - - -


100+35+66 23.71 563.5 15.98 65.0 77.8 2.20

150+52+66 25.40 520.1 13.92 68.5 74.8 2.09

CD(p=0.05) 1.32 NS 1.46 - - -

Haulm Cutting (DAP)

70 22.91 552.8 15.12 66.8 70.2 2.05

80 26.21 530.8 14.77 66.8 82.4 2.23

CD(p=0.05) 1.29 NS NS - - -

Dua et al (2008), Modipuram


Table 13: Effect of foliar spray of PGRs on growth characters and graded tuber

number and yield of potato

Treatment Grade wise tuber tubers (t/ha) Total tuber

yield

(t/ha) >55mm 45-54mm 35-44mm <35mm

K level

K0 1.3 1.7 4.4 2.9 10.4

K60 7.9 3.8 4.7 2.4 18.9

K90 9.4 3.9 4.8 2.3 20.5

K120 10.1 4.4 4.9 2.2 21.7

CD (p=0.05) 1.8 0.7 NS NS 1.5

Nitrogen level

N120 6.0 3.2 4.2 2.5 16.8

N180 8.3 3.6 4.9 2.4 19.0

CD (p=0.05) 1.5 0.3 0.2 NS 1.7

Foliar KNO3 (%)

0.0 6.6 3.2 4.7 2.3 16.9

1.0 7.8 3.7 4.7 2.6 18.9

CD(p= 0.05) 1.0 0.3 NS 0.2 1.3

Brar and Kaur (2006), Ludhiana

Indian J Agril Sci 76:740-43

Table 14: Effect of different levels of applied N and K through soil and foliar application on graded and total tuber

yield

Treatment Grade wise tuber yield Total tuber yield

(t/ha) >55mm 45-54mm 35-44mm <35mm

N120K0 0.8 1.4 4.4 3.0 9.7

N120K0 F 1.3 1.5 5.0 3.2 10.1

N180K0 1.4 1.6 4.3 2.5 9.8

N180K0 F 1.7 2.3 4.1 3.2 11.3

N120K60 5.4 2.8 4.6 2.4 15.3

N120K60 F 6.1 4.3 4.8 2.6 17.9

N180K60 9.7 3.5 4.4 2.3 20.1

N180K60F 10.4 4.7 5.0 2.4 22.7

N120K90 7.7 3.5 5.1 2.1 18.5

N120K90 F 9.5 3.9 4.6 2.4 20.4

N180K90 8.6 4.3 5.2 2.4 20.5

N180K90 F 11.9 3.9 3.5 2.4 22.9

N120K120 8.1 4.4 5.7 2.3 20.4

N120K120 F 9.3 4.5 5.6 2.4 21.8

N180K120 10.9 4.1 4.1 2.0 21.2

N180K120 F 12.1 4.6 4.5 2.4 23.6

CD=0.05 3.1 1.0 NS NS 3.7

Brar and Kaur (2006), Ludhiana

Indian J Agril Sci 76:740-43

Table 15: Effect of combination of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on growth, graded and

total tuber yield and net returns

Treatment

(NPK + manure t/ha)

Plant

height

(cm)

Grade wise tuber yield (q/ha) Total

tuber

yield

(q/ha)

Net

Returns

(Rs./ha)

B:C

>75g 25-75g <25g

25 % RDF + Control 30.6 63 180 53 296 29805 1.7

25 % RDF + 30 Nadep 31.4 64 207 53 324 36955 1.9

25 % RDF + 30 FYM 32.1 57 216 56 329 38595 1.9

50 % RDF + Control 39.4 79 220 49 358 43782 2.0

50 % RDF + 30 Nadep 36.7 80 218 62 360 42572 2.0

50 % RDF + 30 FYM 39.5 76 242 59 377 48672 2.0

75 % RDF + Control 46.5 91 230 61 382 47560 2.0

75 % RDF + 30 Nadep 45.5 102 250 64 416 54950 2.2

75 % RDF + 30 FYM 45.2 116 260 52 428 49550 2.3

100 % RDF + Control 48.4 96 243 65 404 51037 2.1

100% RDF + 30 Nadep 52.1 105 258 72 435 56927 2.2

100% RDF + 30 FYM 51.5 111 278 67 456 63627 2.3

Control 25.7 36 149 49 234 16528 1.4

CD(p=0.05) 4.3 18 22 12 35 - -

Singh and Kushwant (2006), Gwailor, M.P.

Indian J Agron 51:236-38

Table 16: Effect of combination of organic and inorganic nutrients on

potato (pooled over two years)

Treatment Number of

tuber per

m2

Total yield

(t/ha)

Cost of

Cultivatio

n

B:C ratio

Control 43.39 10.87 30221 1.41

100% Organic 52.76 22.30 38912 2.22

100% Inorganic 59.42 27.51 42140 2.52

75% organic + 25% Inorganic 55.22 24.43 39211 2.40

60% Organic + 40% Inorganic 57.37 27.53 40250 2.67




CD(p=0.05) NS 1.27 - -

Sarkar et al (2011), Nadia, W.B.

Potato J 38(1): 78-80

* % of Organic manures was calculated on the basis of N-equivalent of the recommended dose

Table 17: Effect of different planting pattern and drip irrigation on total tuber

yield, WUE and on economics

Treatment Total

yield

(q/ha)

Water

applied

mm

WUE

kg/ha-mm

Seed rate

(q/ha)

Cost of

Cultivation

Gross

returns

M1 268 700 38.3 30 61,000 71,500

M2 334 425 79.0 30 71,400 95,600

M3 338 425 79.5 30 71,400 98,000

M4 361 425 84.9 40 78,000 1,02,500

M5 417 425 98.1 40 78,000 1,30,500

M6 391 425 92.0 43 83,000 1,12,400

CD(p=0.05) 73.0 - - - - -

Patel et al (2010), Deesa, Gujarat

PotatoJ 37: 64-67

M1 = Furrow irrigation method

M2 = Ridges and Furrow (50 cm apart)- Drip lateral in each furrow

M3 = Flat method (50 cm apart)- Drip lateral between two rows

M4 = Paired row (75 cm bed)- Drip lateral between two rows 20cm apart

M5 = Broad bed of 150 cm with drip at alternate line (two lateral, 4 rows, 30 cm apart)

M6 = Broad bed of 210 cm with drip at alternate line (three lateral, 6 rows, 30 cm apart)

Table 18: Effect of tricontanol on tuber grade and yield of Potato

Treatment Dose g.a.i.

ha-1

Size of tubers (per cent) Tuber yield

(q ha-1)

>75g 50-75g <50g 2002-

03

2003-04

2002-

03

2003-

04

2002-

03

2003-

04

2002-

03

2003-

04

Miraculan* 0.125 44 58 37 28 19 14 311.3 327.8

Miraculan 0.250 64 72 21 16 15 12 329.4 341.6

Miraculan 0.500 65 76 19 12 16 12 330.5 343.2

Miraculan 1.000 63 72 22 18 16 10 324.1 340.1

Vipul* 0.250 58 72 28 26 14 12 318.5 334.8

Vipul 0.500 65 68 15 23 20 9 326.3 342.1

Untreated - 37 42 46 34 17 24 296.8 303.6

LSD (p =0.05) - 2.81 3.56 3.17 4.32 2.56 4.12 5.14 4.40

Samui & Roy (2007), Nadia, W.B.

J Crop & Weed 3: 35-36

•Tricontanol Trade name

Table 19: Effect of different methods of weed control on WCE, tuber yield and net returns

Treatment No. of

weed/0.25

m2

Dry wt. of

weed at

harvest

(g m2)

WCE

(%)

Tuber

yield

(q/ha)

Net

return

Rs./ha

B:C

Fluchloralin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 5.28 1.37 79.7 149.4 36522 1.57

Fluchloralin@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 4.98 1.33 80.7 161.7 40799 1.71

Pendimethalin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 5.91 1.45 74.9 111.5 21071 0.90

Pendimethalin@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 5.78 1.45 74.6 116.4 22244 0.92

Metribuzin@ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 4.29 0.98 90.1 190.2 51959 2.15

Metribuzin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 4.30 1.16 87.1 185.4 49316 1.99

Diuron@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 4.70 1.22 85.6 174.7 47517 2.12

Diuron@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 4.92 1.23 84.4 166.4 43990 1.95

Farmer practice 4.96 1.25 84.4 172.4 43585 1.72

Weed free check 3.28 0.58 96.8 201.3 51520 1.78

Unweeded Check 9.05 2.04 0.00 78.0 9484 0.44

CD= 0.05 0.83 0.30 7.80 12.98

Channappa (2007), Dharwad, Karnataka

Karnataka J Agric Sci 20: 715-18

Table 20: Effect of different weed management methods on weed density, weed dry

weight, tuber number and yield of potato crop (pool over two years)

Treatment Weed count/ m2 Weed dry

weight/m2

Tuber no.

(‘000/ha) Tuber weight

(q/ha)

Weed

index

(%) 30

DAP

80

DAP

30

DAP

80

DAP

Mark-

etable

Total Mark-

etable

Total

Control 366.6 429.0 6.0 45.3 434.6 559.3 334.2 348.7 15.3

Weed free - - - - 527.0 688.3 396.1 411.5 0

One Weeding +

Earthing up 350.9 67.4 5.5 4.8 446.0 559.7 345.8 358.9 12.8

Prometryn 50 WP

(1.0 kg/ha) 49.5 103.8 1.2 7.1 515.2 663.2 388.1 408.1 0.8

Prometryn 50 WP

(1.5 kg/ha)

44.1 52.8 1.1 2.5 497.1 633.2 384.2 401.5 2.4

Pendimethalin 30 EC 37.6 71.1 1.0 5.8 476.9 598.2 379.5 393.9 4.3

CD (p=0.05)

86.6 30.7 2.3 5.8 34.7 78.7 47.4 38.0 -

Kumar et al (2009), Modipuram (U.P.)

Potato J 36(1-2): 72-74

Farm implements and machines

Potato production made less labour intensive, increased economic viability and timely

operations through development of various farm machinery/implements

Manually/engine operated endless screen type potato

grader Poato Harvester

Conclusion Seed treatment with GA3 and Thiourea helps in breaking the

dormancy

Seed size of 30-40g gives higher yield of seed size tubers.

60 x 15 spacing is optimum for higher yield of seed size tubers

and in economic terms as well.

Haulm cutting at 80-90 DAP produces more no. of seed size

tubers

Application of FYM increase the seed tuber yield and total

yield

Drip irrigation improves the Water Use Efficiency.

Fertilization through integrated nutrient management gives

more returns per rupees invested.

Chemical weed control helps in large scale seed production.

Thank You

Seed Potato Production

Education

Transcript of Seed Potato Production