8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
1/68
ISSN 0256-8748Social SciencesWorking PaperNo. 2010 - 2
W o r k i n g
P a p e r
2 0 1 0
- 2
Assessing potato farmersperceptions on abiotic stresses andimplications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India
Rajesh K Rana, Neeraj Sharma,MS Kadian, Girish BH, S Arya, D Campilan,SK Pandey, NH Patel, C. Carli, R. Schafleitner, M. Bonierbale, BP Singh, G. Thiele
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
2/68
ii
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
3/68
W o r k i n g P a p e r
Assessing potato farmersperceptions on abiotic stresses and
implications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India
Rajesh K Rana, BP Singh, SK PandeyCentral Potato Research Institute (C PRI),
Shimla-171001 HP, IndiaNeeraj Sharma, MS Kadian, Girish BH, S Arya, D Campilan
International Potato Center (CIP),Regional Office for SWCA, New Delhi, India
NH PatelPotato Research Station, Banaskantha, Gujarat, India
C. CarliInternational Potato Center (CIP)
Liaison Office for CGIAR-CAC, Tashkent, UzbekistanR. Schafleitner, M. Bonierbale, G. Thiele
International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
4/68
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
5/68
iii
Table of ContentsAcronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. viAbstract .................................................................................................................................................... viiAcknowledments ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ....... viiExecutive 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
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
6/68
iv
4.2.18. Food expenditure to net income ratio...... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ... 25 4.2.19. Farm assets............................................................................................................................. 4.2.20. Land use pattern............ ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. . 26 4.2.21. Soil health awareness ......................................................................................................... 27 4.2.22. Irrigation status........... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ... 2 4.2.23. Adoption rate ........................................................................................................................2 4.2.24. Variety wise potato yield ...................................................................................................30 4.2.25. Seed replacement rate ....................................................................................................... 30 4.2.26. Seed source............................................................................................................................ 3 4.2.27. Seed rate............... ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. . 4.2.28. Seed size................................................................................................................................. 4.2.29. Cut/whole seed use.............................................................................................................32 4.2.30. Retention of own seed............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ . 33 4.2.31. Price satisfaction... ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .......... 3 4.2.32. Post Harvest Losses............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ....... 34 4.2.33. Level of mechanisation ...................................................................................................... 35 4.2.34. Capacity building .................................................................................................................3
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ Recommendations ........... ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ......... References ................................................................................................................................................ Annexes ................................................................................................................................................
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 FiguresFigure 1a. Leading potato growing countries (area)............ ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .........6Figure 1b. Leading potato growing countries (production) ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ......6Figure 2. Map of the study area............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ......9Figure 3. Priority index (0-100) of various varietal attributes ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ 16
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
7/68
v
Figure 4. Percent relative importance of top preferred five attributes. .............. ............. ............. .... 16Figure 5. Education index (1-5) of head of the family ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ 18Figure 6. Labour participation across farm categories (5%)............. ............. ............. .............. ............. 19Figure 7. Annual Potato Income (US$) ............ ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............ .... 20Figure 8. Net annual family income of respondents (US$).............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .. 20Figure 9. Per capita annual income (US$)............... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ........ 21Figure 10. Percent contribution of potato............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............ 21Figure 11. House condition index (1-5) ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. .... 22Figure 12. Nutritional security across farm categories (%)............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ....... 23Figure 13. Social participation level (%). ............. ............. ............ ............. ............. ............. ............. ............ .. 24Figure 14. Monthly food and total expenditure (US$).............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 25Figure 15. Ratio of food expenditure and net income (Engels curve)............ .............. ............. .......... 25
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
8/68
vi
Acronyms and abbreviationsACGR = 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 forsustainable development with worldwide operations and major emphasis on sustainably
improving peoples 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)
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
9/68
vii
Acknowledgements This study is an outcome of collaborative work of CIP and CPRI (ICAR). Authors thank Dr. RC
Maheswari, Vice Chancellor and Dr. SBS Tikka, Director of Research, Sardarkrushinagar
Agricultural University Dantiwada, Gujarat, for providing help in selecting sites. We are grateful to
Dr. HN Verma, retired scientist PRS Dessa, Gujarat, for his constant support during field survey. We
are extremely thankful to Mr. Kalidas B Chaudhari, Mr. Shiva K Chaudhari, Mr. Vinod Patel, Mr.
Mahesh L Chaudhari and many other progressive farmers of Gandhinagar district for their field
support and co-operation. We are especially thankful to the GTZ for financially supporting thisstudy. Sincere thanks are due to Dr. Jai Gopal, Principal Scientist and Head, Division of Crop
Improvement, CPRI-Shimla for suggesting valuable improvements in the manuscript.
Comprehensive peer review by Drs. Victor Mares, Guy G. Hareau and Thomas Miethbauer, CIP-
Lima helped authors to remove several deficiencies in the report.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
10/68
viii
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
11/68
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 S1
Assessing potato farmers perceptions on abioticstresses and implications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IntroductionIndia 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 5 0C 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 aredeveloped it was decided to carry out a diagnostic cum baseline survey in proposed project
areas. Answers to the following questions were elicited in this survey.
1. What actions farmers think, can further increase potato yield and income on theirfarms?
2. What is the farmers perception on desirable and undesirable characters of existingpotato varieties?
3. Why farmers abandoned some potato varieties in the past?4. To what extent potato growers consider abiotic stresses a limiting factor?5. What priorities farmers regard as desirable characters in the future potato varieties?
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
12/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
2 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
6. How to compare production systems and livelihood status of potato and non-potato
farmers?7. How to identify and fix baseline indicators and standpoints for future impactassessment 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 employedto 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 importantattributes, 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.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
13/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 3
1. Educational qualification : Level of education of average household head in non-potato
growers was slightly (3% lower) lower than the potato growing farmers. However this
gap was much wider (46% lower) in case of non-farmers.
2. Primary Occupation : Proportion of potato growers having farming as their primary
occupation was slightly higher (at 88%) than the non-potato growers (at 83%). But, more
or less equal proportion of non-farmers was finding primary occupation in labour.
3. Gender ratio of head of households : All heads of surveyed farming households were
males. However, 5% of heads of non-cultivator households were females.
4. Labour participation : Labour participation of non-potato growers was marginally
higher than that of potato growers. Overall 35% of heads of households in the area work
personally on their farms.
5. Net annual family income Net annual family income : Net family income in US$ was
5348 for potato growers, 2095 for non-potato growers and just 885 for non-farmers.
Average annual net family income of potato growers was 2.55 times higher than the
non-potato growers. Average annual potato income showed tremendous increase with
the increase in potato holding (marginal = UD$ 338 to large potato farmers = US$ 6682).
Gap in annual net family income between farmers and non-farmers was again very wide.
6. Per capita income : Even the marginal potato farmers (most disadvantaged among
potato farmers) were having per capita income (US$ 616) higher than the non-potato
growers (US$ 328). However, non-farmers were the poorest category of respondents inthe 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--vis the non-potato growers.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
14/68
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 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
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 fromother 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 (Engels curve) : Among respondent categories
potato farmers were having lowest (12%) and non-farmers the highest (54%) food
expenditure to total family income ratio.
16. Land use pattern : On an average potato farmers were using 63% of cultivated land for
potato (range 50% for marginal to 77% for large potato growers).
17. Adoption rate : Kufri Badshah (1.284 ha per farm) was the leading potato variety in the
area followed by K. Pukhraj (0.684 ha per farm) and K. Luavkar (0.044 ha per farm) during
2008-09.
18. Variety wise potato yield : Overall the potato yield on sampled farms was 28 tonnes per
hectare against the state average of 26.7 tonnes during the triennium ending 2007-
08(Annex6 ).
19. Seed replacement rate : Seed replacement rate was same (after a gap of 1.08 years) for
K. Badshah and K. Pukhraj varieties. However, this rate was slow (after the gap of 1.5
years) in case of K. Lauvkar.
20. Seed rate : Overall 2.52 and 2.62 tonnes seed potato was used per ha during 2007-08 and2008-09. Seed rate across varieties and farmer categories didnt show wide fluctuation.
21. Retention of own seed : Only 21% respondents retained some seed potato from own
source.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
15/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 5
RecommendationsAlong with heat and drought tolerance the breeding team of the project should also payattention 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.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
16/68
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
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
Assessing potato farmers perceptions on abioticstresses and implications for crop improvementresearch in heat-prone Gujarat, India
1. INTRODUCTION
Potato is the worlds fourth most important food crop after rice, wheat and maize. In India potato
is largely consumed as vegetable. India is an important potato producing country in the world,
ranking fourth in area (after China, Russia and Ukraine) and third ranking in production (after
China and Russia) ( Figures 1a and 1b ). India has higher average potato productivity than China,Russia and Ukraine.
Food security issues in Indian context have been thoroughly addressed at several fora (Acharya,
2009 and Chand, et al., 2007; to mention a few). Contribution of potato to the socio-economic
Figure 1a.Leading potato growing
countries (area)
Figure 1b.Leading potato
growing countries(production)
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
17/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 7
condition of Indian people i.e. food security, employment generation and livelihood security has
been highlighted by Shekhawat and Naik, 1999.
Gujarat has emerged as the fastest growing potato state in India during recent years. During the
triennium ending 2000-01 and 2006-07, the area and production in Gujarat grew by 33% and
65.7% compared to all India growth of 8.5 and (-) 1.2%, respectively (Kesari and Rana, 2008). Over
the same period the share of Gujarat in national potato production rose from 3.01 to 5.04%. The
annual compound growth rates of area and production over a period of 1998-99 to 2006-07 were
computed equal to 4.5 and 7.9% for Gujarat against 1.31 and (-)0.5% for all India. The latest official
potato production data shows that Gujarat (1.210 million MT in 2006-07 and 1.796 million MT in
2007-08) has replaced Punjab (1.223 million MT in 2006-07 and 1.477 million MT in 2007-08) as
the third largest potato producing state in India after Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal (Annex 6).
Gujarat also has attained the highest potato productivity in all Indian states during 2004-05 to
2007-08.
Global warming has been perceived as one of the biggest threats to Indian agriculture in general
and potato in particular (Lal et al ., 2008). Temperature was estimated to rise approximately by 1, 3
and 5 0C during main Indian potato growing winter season in year 2020, 2050 and 2080,
respectively. Potato production at national level was estimated to decline by 9.56 and 16.06% in
year 2020 and 2050, respectively, vis--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.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
18/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
8 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
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 survey 1. 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 NHPatel, In-charge Potato Research Station, Deesa, Banaskantha, Gujarat.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
19/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 9
Figure 2. Map of the study area
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
20/68
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 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
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 and2008-09) and various categories of potato growers i.e. marginal (potato area
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
21/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 11
E E O
22 )(
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section is discussed in two broad headings: diagnosis of farmers perception on variety
development; and baseline indicators for future impact assessment.
4.1. Diagnosis of farmers perception on variety development4.1.1. 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 contributetowards 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 factor 2 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 technologies 3.
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 responseson 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 tothe conventional furrow application. Sprinkler irrigation was found to initiate and aggravate late blight infection in potatocrop. Hence, drip irrigation was the best water saving technology available with the studied farmers. In addition to watersaving this irrigation technology was responsible for checking late blight infection and better efficiency of nutrientsthrough fertigation. Gujarat government is providing 50% subsidy (with the cap of INR 50000 per ha) on water savingtechnologies. During previous few years farmers have adopted these water saving technologies very fast making themquite popular in the state.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
22/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
12 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
higher stress on having drought tolerant potato varieties and need of better agricultural
extension services. It was observed that marginal farmers didnt have assured source of irrigationand progressive farmers (who are generally targeted by extension agencies) were not passing on
technical information to the marginal farmers.
Table 2. Farmers perception on potato yield enhancing attributes
Potato growersResponses
Marginal Small Medium Large All% MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In % MR Im In
Yield can furtherincrease.
100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a 100.00 n/a
Sufficient irrigationwater
50.00 2.31 62.50 2.92 68.75 2.92 62.50 2.33 60.61 2.62
Soil reclamation*** 27.78 1.75 6.67 1.00 40.00 1.67 21.43 1.83 24.19 1.65High Yielding Potatovarieties
100.00 3.12 100.00 3.75 93.75 3.56 100.00 3.38 98.51 3.45
Water savingtechnology
83.33 2.67 76.47 2.92 62.50 2.79 75.00 3.00 74.63 2.84
Drought resistantvarieties**
81.25 2.69 58.82 2.69 56.25 2.69 81.25 3.13 69.23 2.81
Heat tolerant varieties 94.44 3.53 100.00 3.81 93.75 4.00 93.33 4.13 95.45 3.87
High dose of fertilizer***
44.44 2.42 40.00 2.67 66.67 3.09 26.67 1.67 44.44 2.55
Proper weed control* 29.41 1.78 53.33 2.60 46.67 2.56 40.00 1.56 49.53 2.14
Insect pest control** 47.06 1.85 68.75 2.31 80.00 2.75 68.75 2.46 67.19 2.33
Proper Late Blightmanagement
88.89 2.94 75.00 3.33 68.75 2.79 93.33 3.54 81.54 3.13
Management of otherdiseases*
43.75 1.75 53.33 2.00 43.67 1.50 66.67 2.00 52.46 1.83
Adequate availabilityof pesticides
50.00 2.08 43.75 2.56 56.25 2.18 37.50 2.33 46.97 2.27
Adequate availabilityof fertilizers
50.00 2.45 53.33 2.11 53.33 2.00 43.75 2.36 50.00 2.25
Adequate availabilityof funds
55.56 3.18 60.00 2.89 75.00 2.78 56.35 2.40 61.54 2.82
Availability of cheapermachinery*
47.06 2.88 53.33 2.38 66.67 3.11 42.86 2.43 52.46 2.72
Low input prices*** 72.22 2.92 66.67 2.70 80.00 2.90 40.00 2.22 65.08 2.71Better Agril ExtensionServices***
94.12 3.31 23.53 2.91 31.25 3.45 85.71 3.25 57.81 3.24
% MR = Percent multiple responses; Im In = Farmers perceived Importance index (range 1 to 5); Chi-square test indicated statisticallydifferent response levels among farm categories at * = 10%; ** = 5%; and *** = 1% level of significance. Chi square test was applied onactual 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
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
23/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 13
storability in the preceding sentence refers to higher storage losses (at ambient temperature as
well as during cold storage) of potato varieties.
Table 3. Responses on desirable and undesirable qualities of different varieties (%).
Particulars Variety
K. Badshah K. Pukhraj K. Lauvkar
Good qualities
Yield 47.5 72.7
Early maturing -- 63.6 50.0
Desirable tuber size 32.8 -- --
Good storability 52.5 -- 75.0High price 47.5 -- 50.0
Good for processing -- -- 50.0
Bad qualities
Low yield -- -- 50.0
Susceptible to heat 43.2 23.1
Late blight susceptible -- 23.1 25.0
Late maturing 24.3 -- --
Bad storability -- 46.2 --
Low price -- 30.8 --
K. = Kufri (All potato varieties released by CPRI, Shimla are named in two words and the first one is Kufri as Kufriwas the first potato breeding station in India)
4.1.3. Reasons for abandoning varieties
Four varieties were reported abandoned 4 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 somenegative perception were considered abandoned.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
24/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
14 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
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 notcarried 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 18 0C 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.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
25/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 15
Table 5. Relative importance of abiotic stresses (% of responses).
Category of potato growersType 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 influenceon 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 perceived 5 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 yieldswere 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 soldinitially are likely to incur losses. However, those who could hold their produce are likely to get higher net income ascompared to 2007-08 despite of nearly 35% lower average estimated potato yield during this year.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
26/68
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
16 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
4.1.6. Early maturing potato varieties
Early maturing potato varieties are very important for farmers in Gujarat state in general andGandhinagar district in particular. This importance stems from the fact that farmers in this state
seriously try to take an additional crop after potato. Besides, they also try to escape heat and
potato tuber moth damage during February and March. However, eighth priority for early
maturing attribute ( Figure 3 ) in future potato varieties, due to relatively lower priority index and
relative importance, was lower than the general expectation of the survey team. It was due to the
Figure 3.Priority index (0-100) of
various varietal attributes
Figure 4.Percent relative
importance of toppreferred five
attributes.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
27/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 17
fact that studied farmers already have very good early maturing and high yielding potato variety
in the form of Kufri Pukhraj. However, the shortcomings of this variety viz., low dry matter, poor
storability and susceptibility to late blight have been reflected in other attributes such as
resistance to late blight, suitability for processing and good storability in addition to the early
maturity. Hence, early maturity as an attribute along with better dry matter, storability and late
blight resistance in the new potato varieties, should be considered at higher priority level than
the one listed in the table. Marginal farmers confer higher than the overall importance to good
storability attribute in new potato varieties 6.
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 higherimportance to this attribute too.
4.2. Baseline indicators for future impact assessmentEducation 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 thatpotato prices are low during harvesting season and prices rise after the produce is cold stored. Marginal farmers tend toavoid paying cold storage charges and mostly opt for storing their produce using conventional methods. Hence betterstorability as an attribute in new potato varieties is likely to be more beneficial to the poor potato farmers having smallland holdings.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
28/68
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
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
education of average household head in non-potato growers was slightly lower than the potato
growing farmers ( Figure 5 ). However this gap was much wider in case of farmers and non-
farmers.
4.2.2. Primary occupation
Primary occupation of a person not only reflects his/ her seriousness and commitment in that
particular occupation but also conveys important indication about his/ her socio-economic
condition7
. Proportion of potato growers having farming as their primary occupation was slightlyhigher 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 muchcomfortable life. People are tempted to supplement family income through jobs, labour work and running pettybusinesses/services. Primary occupation indicates the quantum of time invested in a particular source of earning.
Figure 5. Education index (1-5) of
head of the family.
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
29/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 19
4.2.4. Labour participation
Labour participation shows actual involvement of a person on his/ her own farms. Labour
participation of non-potato growers was marginally higher than that of potato growers
(Figure 6 ). It was due to the reason that potato growers were wealthier and many of them dont
personally work on their farms. Overall 35% of heads of households in the area used to personally
work on their farms.
Very high proportion of the respondents was not having any secondary occupation, hence,
analysis and discussion of secondary occupation may not provide conclusive and meaningful
inferences.
4.2.5. Net annual family income
Family income from all sources (Table 8) confirms that potato growers constitute the richest
section of households in the study area 8. 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 income 9. 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 assavings were not subtracted.9 In all cases potato was a cash crop. Due to very high temperatures following crop harvest farmers were not retainingmore than 2 months potato consumption equivalent for home consumption. Home consumption of potato variedbetween nearly 50 kg to 200 kg per year per family. This quantity was valued at market rate. No other significant non-monetary income was perceived in the area.
Figure 6. Labour participation acrosfarm categories (5%)
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
30/68
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
20 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
crops (including potato) and dairy constituted agricultural income. Salaries or remittances and
other non-farm income were other sources of respondents income. Average annual net family
income of potato growers was 2.55 times higher than the non-potato growers ( Annex 4 ).
Average annual potato income showed tremendous increase with the increase in potato holding
(marginal to large potato farmers) ( Figure 7 ). Gap in annual net family income between farmers
and non-farmers was again very wide.
4.2.6. Per capita income
Per capita income is one of the most reliable indicators of economic well being of a family. The
per capita income across various categories of respondents in US$ ( Figure 9 ) present similar
scenario as depicted by net family income. Even the marginal potato farmers (most
disadvantaged among potato farmers) were having per capita income higher than the non-
potato growers. However, non-farmers were the poorest category of respondents in the study
area.
Figure 7.
Annual Potato Income (US$).
Figure 8.Net annual family income
of respondents (US$)
US$ = 48 INR
US$ = 48 INR
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growersNP NC AR
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
31/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 21
4.2.7. Proportion of potato income Proportion of potato income in the overall agricultural income of potato farmers was nearly 36%
(Figure 10 ) while it occupies only 25% of the annual cropping time. In the study area farmers
invariably keep their land continuously under cultivation for the entire year. Potato contributed
nearly 28% of the net family income (from all sources). Potato is a capital intensive and high risk
crop ( Annex 4 ). Large farmers are in better position to manage risk and cultivate potato on
higher proportion of their cultivated land. They have better control and more efficient use of
indivisible fixed costs associated with this crop.
4.2.8. Dairy animals
Gujarat is world famous for its dairy cooperatives. All milk produced (irrespective of quantity) ispurchased by these cooperatives at the farm gate. These cooperatives do provide technical and
inputs support to their members. Number of lactating animals on a farm is an important indicator
of financial health of the farm family. Dairy not only provides additional income to the farmers
but also cushions against crop failures. Number of lactating animals on the farms of potato
growers showed less variation across the categories ( Table 6 ). However, non-potato growers and
non-farmers had much less number of lactating animals as compared to the potato farmers.
Figure 9. Per capita annualincome (US$)
Figure 10. Percent contributionof potato.
US$ = 48 INR
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
32/68
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
22 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
Table 6. Average inventory of lactating animals (No.)Category
Potato growers
Particulars
Marginal Small Medium Large AllNon- potatogrowers
Non-cultivators
Overall
Cattle 5.28 5.00 4.81 3.07 4.87 1.83 1.00 2.57Buffaloes 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) andcycle (personal use); potato growers had more assets for personal use (Annex 5) . However, non-
potato growers and non-farmers had pick-up vehicles for commercial use.
4.2.10. House condition
House condition index showed less signs of poverty among potato farmers (Figure 11) . The
house condition of even the marginal potato farmers was very near to the highest category (INR
0.5 million house = score 5) considered during the survey. However, house condition of non-
potato growers was much below as compared to the potato growers. The house condition of
non-farmers was even worse vis--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 growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
33/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 23
4.2.11. Nutritional security
Regularity and balanced food (inclusion of diverse and nutritive food items) were considered as
indication of nutritional security of respondents 10. Nutritional security is a very important well-
being indicator and this index was particularly low in case of non-farmers ( Figure 12 ). Non-
farmers are generally landless labourers and need higher attention of development agencies.
Landless labourers particularly the migrant ones resort to consuming same type of food for
months together without proper supplementation with milk products or eggs etc. Use of tin
containers for the storage of food grains (protects quality and quantity by checking spoilage by
moisture and insects) was also guided by family income (Annex 5) .
4.2.12. Water and electricity connections
Individual water and electricity connections were also expected to be largely affected by annual
family income (Annex 5) . Non-farmers were once again the disadvantaged segment.
4.2.13. Toilets
Large potato growers had high number of temporary toilets, which were primarily made for their
servants and permanent labourers ( Annex 5 ). Nearly one third of the respondents among non-
potato growers and three fourth among non-farmers were going to open fields/ places to answer
the call of nature. This is an important area where developmental agencies need to act.
10 Investigators were asked to use their judgement based on the some parameters such as inclusion of protein sources(pulses-daily or on alternate days, one egg per person-daily or alternate days if pulses are deficit in food and meat-at leastonce 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 indicatorfor future comparison in the same area. It may or may not be possible to replicate in other places.
Figure 12. Nutritional security acrossfarm categories (%).
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
34/68
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
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
4.2.14. Social participation
Social participation is an indicator of respondents likely exposure to new knowledge and
improved decision making. Membership of social organisation such as Mahila Mandals (women
welfare groups), various self-help groups, farmers clubs, cooperative societies etc. was
considered to measure social participation. In this regard tremendous difference was observed
between potato farmers and non-potato farmers indicating that potato farmers in the study are
socially more united and active ( Figure 13 ). The social participation level of non-farmers was
negligible.
4.2.15. Migration
Migration was studied in relation to work as unskilled labourer only. About 10% of the non-farmer
respondents families reported migration from other areas ( Annex 5 ). Most of the migrant labour
was coming from poor districts of Gujarat such as Panchmahal and Banaskantha; and other states
like Rajasthan (border areas of Rajasthan adjoining Gujarat).
4.2.16. Other indicators
Other indicators like type of childrens 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, internetfacility and water purifiers were again on expected lines. However, average number of members
capable of using email in case of non-farmers was higher as compared to non-potato cultivators
and all categories of potato farmers except the large farmers. Invariably, the non-farmer family
members using email were undertaking petty jobs (mostly data-feeding) in financial or
information technology related agencies. They all were using email at their work places without
email facilities at homes.
Figure 13.Social participation
level (%).NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
35/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 25
4.2.17. Expenditure pattern
Average monthly expenditure of different respondent categories was computed on various
expenditure items such as food, children education, travel, bill etc ( Annex 5 ). For better and easy
international comparison monthly food and total expenditure were graphically depicted in terms
of US$ (Figure 14) .
4.2.18. Food expenditure to net income ratio
As per Engels Law 11 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 Engels Law.
11 Ernst Engel, a nineteenth century German statistician came out with the findings that proportion of income spent onfood goes on decreasing as the income increases. The concept got popular as Engels law. Engels curve is a widelyaccepted tool to measure/ compare poverty.
Figure 14. Monthly food and totalexpenditure (US$)
Figure 15. Ratio of foodexpenditure and netincome (Engels curve).
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
US$ = 48 INRPotato growers
NP= Non potato growersNC= Non cultivatorsAR= All respondents
Potato growers
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
36/68
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
26 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
4.2.19. Farm assets Inventory of farm assets reflects investment levels in agriculture that ensure operational
certainties. The average number of important farm assets such as tractor, potato planter, potato
digger, tractor-trolley and plough were as per expectation ( Table 7 ).
Table 7. Average inventory of farm assets (Number per farm).
Category
Potato growers
Particulars
Marginal Small Medium Large AllNon- potato
growersOverall
Tractor 0.111 0.412 0.560 1.000 0.412 0.000 0.159
Potatoplanter 0.000 0.112 0.375 0.938 0.225 0.000 0.082Potato digger 0.056 0.118 0.125 0.938 0.175 0.000 0.068
Tractor trolley 0.111 0.353 0.500 0.938 0.369 0.000 0.142
Plough 0.889 0.941 1.375 1.938 1.103 0.833 0.483
4.2.20. Land use pattern
Land use pattern is an important baseline indicator that can be compared over the time in order
to analyse the changes in land ownership and use. On average potato farmers were using 63% of
cultivated land for potato ( Table 8 ). Proportion of potato area increased from 50% on small to
77% on large potato farms. How this proportion changes overtime (even within farm categories)
will give important information for the researchers. Potato was cultivated on the highestproportion 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.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
37/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 27
Table 8. Land use pattern of sampled households (Land in ha).
Category
Potato growers
Particulars
Marginal Small Medium Large AllNon- potato
growersNon-
cultivatorsOverall
Cultivated land(owned)
1.564 2.320 3.356 8.352 2.844 0.808 0.040 1.184
Irrigated 1.564 2.260 3.336 8.352 2.816 0.808 0.040 1.172Rain fed 0.000 0.060 0.020 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.012
Cultivated land(rented in)
0.096 0.116 0,276 2.200 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.128
Cultivated land(rented out)
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.040 0.020
Self cultivated land 1.660 2.436 3.632 10.552 3.172 0.808 0.000 1.292Irrigated 1.660 2.376 3.612 10.552 3.144 0.808 0.000 1.280Rain 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 0.788Uncultivated 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 1.296Note: 1. Rain fed land was not leased-in or leased out.
2. Potato was not cultivated under rain fed conditions in the study area.
Table 9. Average area under different crops (ha).
Category of potato growersParticulars
Marginal Small Medium Large All
Non- potatogrowers
Overall
Maize 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.875 0.078 0.000 0.030Cotton 0.510 0.600 0.875 3.137 0.855 0.080 0.340
Wheat 0.379 0.378 0.450 0.562 0.409 0.320 0.180Groundnut 0.267 0.070 0.088 2.488 0.346 0.000 0.135Vegetables 0.033 0.014 0.112 0.172 0.052 0.000 0.021Castor 0.000 0.021 0.088 0.200 0.044 0.000 0.017Fodder 0.246 0.476 0.228 0.406 0.352 0.113 0.145
Mustard 0.022 0.000 0.008 0.050 0.011 0.000 0.004Others 0.202 0.110 0.412 0.725 0.254 0.107 0.106Potato 0.844 1.320 2.400 8.176 2.008 0.000 0.788
4.2.21. Soil health awareness Gujarat farmers pay very high attention to the soil health on their farmland by incorporating high
doses of dung manure and opting for frequent green manuring. Incorporation of higher dung
manure doses in Gujarat compared to other Indian states was possible due to well developed
dairy industry in the state. Other indicators of soil health were also studied. More or less equal
number of potato and non-potato respondent farmers undertook testing of their soils ( Table 10 ).
Only 71% potato farmers took action as per the recommendation of soil testing report. The
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
38/68
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
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
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 thearea, 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
Category of potato growersParticulars
Marginal Small Medium Large All
Non- potatogrowers
Soil testing index (0-1) 0.222 0.313 0.313 0.688 0.319 0.333
Action on test report (0-1) 1 0.333 1 0.875 0.713 1Soil pH 7.5 -- 7.25 7.38 7.35 --Carbon sequestration measures(0-1)
1.000 0.875 1.000 0.889 0.938 1.000
Green manuring done (0-1) 0.615 0.800 0.667 0.385 0.682 0.200Soil change (No. farmers)
Better 0 0 0 1 1 0Same 5 6 10 7 28 3Worse 1 1 0 3 5 1Dont Know 1 0 0 2 3 1
Average green manuring area(ha)
0.40 0.24 0.64 0.59 0.40 0.08
Soil testing charges were nil for all respondents who got their soils tested. The main reason for testing was tube wellinstallation
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 dont 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.
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
39/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 29
Table 11. Irrigation status and quality of irrigation water
Category of potato growersParticulars
Marginal Small Medium Large All
Non-potatogrowers
Overall
Type of irrigation (%)Furrow 100.000 100.00 100.00 74.375 97.729 100.000 99.11Drip 0 0 0 25.625 2.271 0 1.96
Quality of irrigation water(No. of responses)
Good 15 13 13 12 53 6 59Bad 2 3 3 4 12 0 12Very Bad 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
Water availability (No. of responses)Adequate 16 12 12 14 54 2 56Less 2 4 4 2 12 2 14
Scarce 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Problem of irrigation water(No. of responses)
Low water table 1 2 2 2 7 1 8Fluoride level 1 2 1 4 0 4Saline 1 1 0 2 4 0 4
Sale/Purchase of water (No. of responses)
Yes 12 11 6 1 30 5 35No 5 5 10 15 35 1 36
Price of water (Rs/hr) 99.167 90.909 73.000 100 90.479 100.00 91.77All respondents eliciting bad irrigation water, stated salty water as the reason for bad quality water
4.2.23. Adoption rate
Area covered by particular potato variety shows its adoption rate in the area. Kufri Badshah was
the leading potato variety in the area followed by K. Pukhraj and K. Luavkar (Table 12) . Based on
the two year average i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09 K. Badshah covered nearly 64% potato area in the
study area followed by K. Pukhraj (33%) and K. Lauvkar (3%).
Table 12. Area under different potato varieties (Ha per farm)
Category of potato growersParticularsMarginal Small Medium Large All
Kufri Badshah2007-08 0.527 1.050 1.988 4.225 1.3692008-09 0.796 1.106 1.638 2.925 1.285
Kufri Lauvkar
2007-08 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.853 0.0762008-09 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.493 0.044
Kufri Pukhraj2007-08 0.065 0.205 0.773 4.627 0.6722008-09 0.055 0.188 0.680 5.067 0.682
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
40/68
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
30 A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S
4.2.24. Variety wise potato yield
Potato yield is an important indicator of the overall effect of potato research and development
activities in an area. Overall the potato yield was 28 tonnes per hectare (Table 13). Average yield
of different potato varieties across the farm categories did not vary considerably. Average potato
yield on sampled farms may seem to be higher than the national average of 16.76 tonnes per
hectare during triennium ending 2007-08; but it is quite close to the state average of 26.65
tonnes during same triennium (DES, 2010). Gujarat has the highest reported potato yield among
major potato producing states in India (Kesari and Rana, 2008).
Table 13. Variety wise potato yield during 2007-08(tonne/ha)
Potato growers Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large All
Kufri Badshah 22.35 27.50 29.22 28.45 26.86
Kufri Lauvkar -- -- -- 28.44 28.44
Kufri Pukhraj 22.73 27.01 29.48 27.72 27.35
Total 22.40 27.43 29.27 28.09 27.86
4.2.25. Seed replacement rate
Seed replacement rate in potato crop is an important indicator of crop health and farmers
attitude towards farm business. Seed replacement rate was same for K. Badshah and K. Pukhraj
varieties. However, this rate was slow (after the interval of 1.5 years) in case of K. Lauvkar
(Table 14) .
Table 14. Seed replacement rate of different potato varieties (interval in years)
Potato growers Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large All
Kufri Badshah 1.07 1.00 1.15 1.36 1.08
Kufri Lauvkar -- -- -- 1.50 1.50
Kufri Pukhraj 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.30 1.08
4.2.26. Seed source Quality of seed potato depends on the source of seed to a very large extent. The highest
proportion of seed potato in the study area was supplied by the cooperative societies after
obtaining it from reputed seed potato growers in Punjab (Table 15). Other important sources of
seed were seed companies, market traders (again supplying seed from Punjab and western Uttar
Pradesh). Very small quantities of seed were retained out of own farms or obtained from other
8/7/2019 Assessing potato farmer's perceptions on abiotic stresses and implications for crop improvement research in heat-pr
41/68
C I P S O C I A L S C I E N C E S W O R K I N G P A P E R 2 0 1 0 - 2
A S S E S S I N G P O T A T O F A R M E R S P E R C E P T I O N S O N A B I O T I C S T R E S S E S 31
local farmers. Small and medium farmers had higher dependence on cooperative societies for
getting quality seed-potato while medium and large farmers purchased more seed from private
seed companies than the cooperative societies.Table 15. Source of seed-potato used at respondents farms (%)
Category of potato growersParticulars
Marginal Small Medium Large All2007-08 Own 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.81 5.62
Neighbour 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 1.12Market trader 30.00 10.00 4.55 22.22 16.85Commercial seed grower 10.00 0.00 9.09 3.70 5.62
Cooperative societies 55.00 75.00 36.36 22.22 44.94
Seed Companies 0.00 15.00 45.45 33.33 24.72
Direct from Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 1.