study on growth, development and suitability of some improved potato (solanum tuberosum l
TRANSCRIPT
“Study on growth, development and
suitability of some improved Potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties for
processing. ”
THESIS
Submitted to the
Rajmata Vijyaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In
HORTICULTURE
VEGETABLE SCIENCE
by
KAJAL RAJ
Department of Horticulture
Rajmata Vijyaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya College of Agriculture
Indore (M.P.) 2015
CERTIFICATE-I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Study on growth, development and
suitability of some improved Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties
for processing” submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in HORTICULTURE of Rajmata Vijyaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa
Vidyalaya, Gwalior is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by Ms. KAJAL RAJ
under my guidance and supervision. The subject of the thesis has been approved by the
Student's Advisory Committee and the Director of Instructions.
No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma (Certificate
awarded etc.) or has been published/published part has been fully acknowledged. All the
assistance and help received during the course of the investigation has been acknowledged by
the scholar.
Place:
Date:
(Dr. R.K.Jaiswal)
Chairman of the Advisory Committee
MEMBER OF STUDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman (Dr R.K.Jaiswal)
…………….
Co-Chairman (Dr. K.P.Asati)
…………….
Member (Dr. V. K. Mishra) ……………..
CERTIFICATE-II
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Study on growth, development and
suitability of some improved Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties
for processing” submitted by Ms. KAJAL RAJ to Rajmata Vijyaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa
Vidyalaya, Gwalior in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF
SCIENCE in HORTICULTURE in the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture,
Indore (M.P.) has been after evaluation, approved by the External Examiner and the Student's
Advisory Committee after an oral examination of the same.
Place:
date: (Dr. R.K. Jaiswal)
Chairman of the Advisory Committee
MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman (Dr. R.K. Jaiswal) ……….………………
Co-Chairman (Dr. K.P.Asati) …………………………
Member (Dr. V.K. Mishra) …………………………..
Head of Department …………………………..
Dean of the college ……………………………
Director Instruction ………………………………..
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I thank the ‘Almighty God’ who has blessed me with the opportunity and strength to successfully complete this work.
It is a moment of great deep sense of indebtedness to my honorable major advisor Dr. R.K. Jaiswal (Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture) for his valuable guidance and constructive criticism, close supervision and constant moral support throughout the period of my study and in the thesis preparation which made the goal easy and to reach this stage.
I owe sincere regards and indebtedness to Dr. N.K. Gupta Professor, Head of Department of Horticulture, the members of the advisory committee Dr. K.P.Asati (Professor, Department of Horticulture) and Dr.V.K. Mishra (Professor, Department of Plant Physiology), RVSKVV, College of Agriculture, Indore, for their help and constant guidance during the course of investigation.
My sincere thanks also to Dr .A.M. Rajput, Dean, College of Agriculture, Indore for his exuberant interest for submission of this piece of research work.
I am also thankful to Dr. R.L. Rajput Director of Instruction, RVSKVV, Gwalior and Dr. Anil Kumar Singh Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, RVSKVV, Gwalior, for the help rendered during the period of research work.
It is my pleasant duty to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Shri B.L.Prajapati (SMS, Agronomy, KVK, Aron, Guna ) and Dr. Dipanita Gargava (Professor, English Literature) for their continuing inspiration and all possible help during the tenure of investigation.
I must place on record to mention my gratefulness to my friends namely Harshita Prajapati, Jay sankar Dhurvey, Anuseel Maheshwari and Lenin Khwoirappam whose help is thankfully acknowledge.
Last, but not least, I wish to express my deepest sense of veneration to my father Shri Raj Kumar Prasad and mother Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and my two elder brothers Mr. Vijay Kumar and Jai Kumar and my sister Pallavi Prasad
Place: Indore Date (Kajal Raj)
CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.
I INTRODUCTION 1-3
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-16
III MATERIAL AND METHODS 17-32
IV RESULTS 33-57
V DISCUSSION 58-63
VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 64-67
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
VITA
LIST OF TABLE
Table Number
Title Page Number
3.1 Meteorological data observed during period of investigation from October, 2014 to March, 2015
18
3.2 Physio-chemical properties of soil collected from the experimental field
19
3.3 Cropping history of experimental field 20
3.4 Details of genotypes 20
3.5 Experimental details 21
3.6 ANOVA for Randomized Block Design 31
4.1 Days to 50% germination and Number of sprouts per plant of different potato varieties
33
4.2 Plant height (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
35
4.3 Diameter of stem (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
36
4.4 Number of leaves per plant of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
38
4.5 Leaf length (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
39
4.6 Leaf width (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
40
4.7 Leaf area per plant (cm2) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
42
4.8 Dry weight per plant (g) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
43
4.9 leaf area index of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
44
4.10 Net assimilation rate (g/cm2/day) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
45
4.11 Crop growth rate (g/plant/day) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
47
4.12 days to haulm cutting and days to maturity of different potato varieties
48
4.13 Number of tubers per plant of different varieties of potato.
49
4.14 Number and weight of rotted tubers of different varieties of potato
50
4.15 Total yield of tubers (kg/plot) and (q/plot) of different varieties of potato
51
4.16 Marketable yield of tubers (kg/plot) and q/ha of different varieties of potato
52
4.17 Harvest index of tubers of different varieties of potato 53
4.18 starch content (%) of different varieties of potato 54
4.19 potato flour and quality of chips of different varieties of potato
55
4.20 Incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence among different varieties
56
4.21 Economics of different varietiesof potato 57
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number
Title Page after
1. Meteorological data observed during period of investigation from October, 2014 to March, 2015
18
2. Plan of the layout of experimental plot. 22
3. Days to 50% germination and Number of sprouts per plant of different potato varieties
33
4. Plant height (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
35
5. Diameter of stem (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
36
6. Number of leaves per plant of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
38
7. Leaf length (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
39
8. Leaf width (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
40
9. Leaf area per plant (cm2) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
42
10. Dry weight per plant (g) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
43
11. leaf area index of potato varieties at different plant growth stages.
44
12. Net assimilation rate (g/cm2/day) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
45
13. Crop growth rate (g/plant/day) of potato varieties at different plant growth stages
47
14. days to haulm cutting and days to maturity of different potato varieties
48
15. Number of tubers per plant of different varieties of potato.
49
16. Number and weight of rotted tubers of different varieties of potato
50
17. Total yield of tubers (kg/plot) and (q/plot) of different 51
varieties of potato
18. Marketable yield of tubers (kg/plot) and q/ha of different varieties of potato
52
19. Harvest index of tubers of different varieties of potato 53
20. starch content (%) of different varieties of potato 54
LIST OF PLATES
S.No. Tital Plate No.
1. Varieties of potato 1
2. Raw potato chips 2
3. Fried potato chips 3
4. Potato flour 4
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Words
Abbreviations
Benefit:Cost Ratio B:C Ratio
Centimetre Cm Co-workers et al. Critical difference C.D. Degree of Celsius oC Degree of Freedom d.f. Days after Sowing DAS Figure Fig. Fisher’s value “F” value Gram(s) G Hectare Ha Kilogram(s) Kg Mean sum of square M.S.S. Maximum Minimum
Max. Min.
Muriate of Potash MOP Nitrogen N Non-significant N.S. Number No. Per / Per cent % Phosphorus P2O5 Potash K Potential of hydrogen ions pH Quintal Q Rupees Rs Serial No. S.No. Significant at 5% level * Single Super phosphate SSP Source of variation S.V. Sum of square S.S. Square sq. Standard error of means S.Em+ Standard error of difference Temperature
S.Ed Temp.
Variety V
Chapter-1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
LITERATURE
Chapter-3
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Chapter-4
RESULT
Chapter-5
DISCUSSION
Chapter-6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
VITA
VITA
The author of this thesis, Kajal Raj D/o Shri Raj Kumar Prasad was
born on 20th June 1989 at Patna district of Bihar. She passed her Higher
Secondary Examination in the year 2007 from Science College Patna,
District Patna ( Bihar) with 71.44per cent marks.
In 2009 she joined the R.V.S.K.V.V, B.M. College of Agriculture,
Khandwa and successfully completed her B.Sc. (Ag.) degree in the year
2013 with 8.74 OGPA out of 10.00-point scale. She is gold medalist in B.
Sc. Agriculture. After graduation she joined M.Sc. (Ag.) to specialize in
Vegetable Science at College of Agriculture, Indore. She has completed
her course work with an OGPA 8.52 out of 10.00-point scale. For the
partial fulfillment of Master’s Degree she was allotted need based
research problem ,“ Study on growth, development and suitability of
some improved Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties for processing”
which was duly completed by her and presented in this thesis form.
During her studies she actively participated in several social and
cultural activities at the school and college level.
(KAJAL RAJ)
******
1
Chapter-I
INTRODUCTION
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is an annual, herbaceous, tuber crop of
family Solanaceae that contains almost all the essential food ingredients
required for maintaining proper health. Potato is the world leading vegetable
crop and is grown in 79% of the world‟s countries. Potato is one of the most
important food crops both in developed as well as in developing countries.
Potato was generally regarded to be a crop suited for western world. The
origin of potato is in Peru/ South America. The widely grown cultivated potato
is tetraploid with 2n = 48. In one form or another, there can hardly be any
table in the world, where this vegetable is not served as a food item. Potato is
becoming an increasingly important crop, as it is a staple food in most of the
European countries and is a good and cheap source of food calories and its
high starch content can meet the energy requirements of the people living in
food deficit countries. Accredited to its short duration, nutritional superiority
and a high amount of food per unit area and time, potato production in
developing countries has been increased by about 25% over the last four
decades (Qasim et al., 2013).
Potato ranks second to maize in terms of the number of producing
countries and fourth after wheat, maize and rice in global tonnage. It is
produced in the world with an area of 19.26 million ha, production and
productivity of 320.71 million tonnes and 16.64 tonnes ha-1. The area,
production and productivity of potato in India are 1230.91 thousand ha,
42478.65 thousand metric tons and 34.50 metric tonnes ha-1. India is second
largest potato producer in the world. In M.P. total area under potato cultivation
is 96.77 thousand ha, with production 1998.35 thousand tonnes and
productivity 20.65 metric tonnes ha-1. Major potato growing districts are
Chhindwara, Shajapur, Dewas, Ujjain, Dhar, Sidhi, Satna, Sagar and Gwalior.
Indore district in Madhya Pradesh has maximum total area (22000 ha) and
production (440000 tonnes) of potato (Anon.2011).
2
Most European varieties, introduced earlier in India performed poorly
because conditions in India are entirely different than those prevalent in
temperate countries. A need was therefore, felt that potato cultivation in India
cannot depend on exotic varieties and technologies and the country must
have its own research and development programme for potato. As a result of
organized potato research on developing indigenous varieties and agro-
techniques, the increase in area, production and productivity during last 60
years has been almost phenomenal. This also resulted in development of 41
improved varieties that could give economical yield under different agro-
climatic regions of the country.
Potato is a nourishing and wholesome food. Its low energy density is
advantageous when eaten without much added fat. Potato protein is superior
to that of cereals and rich in essential amino acid „lysine‟. To a large portion of
our population to whom citrus fruits are out of reach, potato remains a cheap
and rich source of vitamin C. There is a misconception that potato causes
obesity. In fact, that it has a low energy and fat food and it cannot cause
fattening. Potato produces highest dry matter, carbohydrates, edible protein,
minerals and vitamin C and B per unit area and time among the major food
crops. Potato is a low calorie food and its protein has a biological value almost
equal to milk or egg. It is a wholesome, nutritious and versatile food which can
come to the rescue of the developing countries for alleviating hunger and
malnutrition especially in shrinking land resources. The average composition
of the potato is about 80% water, 2% protein and 18% starch. As a food, it is
one of the cheapest and easily available sources of carbohydrates and
proteins and contains appreciable amount of vitamin B and C as well as some
minerals. Moreover, protein of potato is of high biological value (Qasim et al.,
2013). The major portion of the dry matter is starch. Carbohydrates consisting
of starch and sugar constitute 18% on fresh weight basis. Crude protein
content is 2.0% and the fat content is very low 0.1%. The ash consisting of
minerals constitutes 1.0%. In addition potato tuber contains fiber, vitamins and
glycoalkaloids in small quantities.
Post harvest improvement such as fast and cheap transportation,
storage and processing will help to make potato production more profitable for
3
farmers by improving their access to markets, raising local value addition. It is
consumed in different forms such as boiled or fried and many different
processed products like chips, flakes, French fries, finger chips, powder,
potato papad etc. which are enjoyed across the generations and continents.
Quality attributes of potato tubers particularly size of tubers, dry matter, starch
and sugar contents are of prime concern of potato growers, in order to fetch
good prices for their produce from processors demanding potato for further
value addition (Panday et al., 2009).
Keeping this in view, the present experiment in potato entitled
“Study on Growth, Development and Suitability of Some Improved Potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Varieties for Processing” has been carried out with
the following objectives:
Objectives:
1. To select the suitable processing and improved varieties of potato for
commercial production in Malwa condition.
2. To determine the growth and yield characters of different varieties.
3. To determine the quality parameters of different varieties of potato.
4. To work out the economics of suitable variety.
4
Chapter-II
Review of Literature
Review of literature is a necessary step for any scientific study. It
provides a theoretical framework, previous work and the basic interpretation
of findings to the study. A brief summary of results of the studies carried out at
various places, more or less related to the present investigation. Since, the
literature on the varietal performance and economics is very meager. An
attempt has been made to review the literature, which is meaningful and had
direct relevance to this study. The available relevant references have been
reviewed under this chapter on following heads:
2.1 Morphological and growth parameters
2.2 Yield parameters
2.3 Quality parameters
2.4 Economics
2.1 Morphological and Growth parameters
Nandekar et al. (1995) reported that the highest average plant height
and number of branches were recorded in hybrids JI – 5857 followed by MS/
79-10; JI – 1857 and MS/ 78-46 were significantly superior over early
maturing check variety i.e. Kufri Chandramukhi.
Patel et al. (2000) found that the highest crop growth rate (CGR, 8.41 g
day-1), relative growth rate (RGR, 7.88 g day-1), net assimilation rate (NAR,
7.78 g cm2-1 day-1) and tuber yield (235.14 q ha-1) were also observed in 1.75
IW: CPE. Kufri Badshah recorded the highest LAI (0.98, 1.66 and 1.06 at 30,
60 and 90 DAP, respectively), CGR (7.89 g day-1) and tuber yield (219.72 q
ha-1).
Shivanandam and Shankaranarayana (2002) studied the
morphological and tuber quality characteristics of tubers obtained from true
potato seed (TPS) genotypes HPS-I-13, HPS-II-13, HPS-7-67, TPS-C-3 and
5
seed tuber cv. Kufri Jyothi. The highest tuber starch content was recorded
only in HPS-I-3. The TPS genotypes recorded maximum number of tubers per
hill. Kufri Jyothi recorded the highest percentage of large- and medium-sized
tubers resulting in the highest percentage of marketable yield.
Kumar et al. (2008) studied growth parameters viz. plant height,
compound leaves and stem number plant-1 in an experiment. Growth
parameters were recorded highest from cv. Kufri Sadabahar, statistically
these were at par with Kufri Chipsona-3 and Kufri Chipsona-1, while lowest
was observed in cv. Kufri Surya. Tuber number plant-1 as well as m-2 was
recorded highest in cv. Kufri Anand which were, however at par with cv. Kufri
Chipsona-1 and Kufri Chipsona-3, whereas the lowest were recorded in cv.
Kufri Sadabahar. As far as tubers yield is concern, highest tubers yield plant-1
was recorded in cv. Kufri Sadabahar which was at par with Kufri Surya and
Kufri Chipsoan-3 followed by Kufri Sutlej, Kufri Bahar and Kufri Chipsoan-1.
Lowest tubers yield plant-1 was recorded in cv. Kufri Badshah which was at
par with cv. Kufri Pukhraj. Tuber yield m-2 was also achieved significantly
highest from cv. Kufri Sadabahar, while lowest was achieved from cv. Kufri
Pukhraj. Significantly highest mean tuber weight of 15g was recorded in cv.
Kufri Sadabahar, while lowest (6.83g) was recorded in cv. Kufri Anand.
Kumar (2011) reported that the stability analysis of 18 potato
genotypes was made for six characters (plant height, tuber yield plant-1, total
tuber yield, dry matter per cent, total sugar and total starch) grown over four
environments. The G x E interaction, environment (linear) and environment
(non-linear) were significant for all the traits. Genotypes MS-89-1095, MS-86-
89, PC-605, 85P-718 and RA-I were found stable under varying environments
for most of the characters studied.
Zheng Xu et al. (2012) reported that significant differences occur
between genotypes with respect to the plant height, main stem diameter and
specific root length. The plant height and main stem diameter of 'Genyou No.
1' were the largest and its specific root length was the smallest, while the plant
height and main stem diameter of 'Konafubuki' were the smallest.
6
Ahmad et al. (2013) reported that the photosynthetic rate significantly
increased in both the cultivars under high CO2 and enhancement was greater
in K. Chipsona-3 than K. Surya. Potato plants grown under elevated CO2
exhibited increased tuber yield due to enhanced number of tubers plant-1. At
the final harvest, total tuber fresh weight was 36% greater under high CO2
treatments compared to ambient.
Patel et al. (2013) reported that the wide range of phenotypic variability
was recorded for reducing sugar, plant height, average weight of tubers,
number of tuber plant-1 and tuber dry matter content. The average weight of
tuber, number of tuber plant-1, number of stem plant-1 and marketable yield
exhibited significantly positive correlation with number of tuber plant-1 at both
genotypic and phenotypic levels.
2.2 Yield parameters
Cremaschi et al. (1991) studied data for all the 80 cultivars on the
following traits: mean growth period duration, number of tubers per plant, yield
of marketable tubers (35-55 mm and >55 mm), dry matter content and yield
index. Information is also presented on correlations between some yield traits
(dry matter percentage, tuber number and yield) and on regressions between
marketable tuber production and duration of the emergence to harvest period;
heat sum and tuber dry matter yield and available water and marketable tuber
production.
Kushwaha et al. (1994) evaluated seven potato varieties for several
morphological and quality traits including shoot emergence, plant height and
shoots pre plant. Number of tubers per plant was significantly higher in
MS/82-638 at both 75 (10.8) and 90 (12.6) days after planting
Roy et al. (1999) found that the Kurfi Chipsona -1 and Kurfi Chipsona -
2 and one Dutch cultivar were cardinal were promising in terms of yield , dry
matter content and chip quality in Bihar condition of India.
Kumar et al. (2001) carried out a field study at Patna showed that Kufri
Sindhuri was higher yielder than Kufri Ashoka and Kufri Jyoti.
7
Alam et al.(2003) reported characterization with fourteen exotic
varieties of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) namely Mondial, Granola, Cardinal,
Ailsa, Petronese, Morene, Diamant, Cleopetra, Binella, Dheera, Multa, Kufri
Sindhuri, Heera, Chamak and a local check(Lal Pakri) under Bangladesh
condition. The yield range of exotic varieties were 19.44 to 46.67 ton per
hectare. Variety Ailsa produced the maximum yield (46.67 t ha-1) which was
followed by Cardinal and Mondial.
Bhutani et al. (2003) registered that the harvesting at 105 days after
planting was optimum, as it resulted in the highest average tuber yield (282.3
q ha-1), dry matter content (17.5%), starch content (11.9 g) and protein
content (12.1% on dry weight basis), and lowest reducing sugar (218.9 mg)
and total sugar (520.3 mg) contents. JW-160 had the highest tuber yield
(308.1 q ha-1), whereas K. Chandramukhi had the highest starch content (13.3
g). K. Badshah had the highest protein content (12.5%). K. Chipsona-2
recorded the highest dry matter content (19.6%), and lowest reducing sugar
(153.1 mg) and total sugar (472.4 mg) contents.
Rahemi et al. (2005) found that potato cultivar affected yield
significantly. The cultivar Marfona showed 28.71% increased in yield over
Diamant.
Tajner et al. (2005) reported that total yield of potato tubers, seed
potatoes and commercial tubers depended on cultivar properties. The highest
yield was produced by cultivar Denar.
Kaushik et al. (2006) studied the stability of 9 potato genotypes (SM-
87-55, SM-87-185, SM-91-1515, SM-88-991, SM-90-45, SM-87-151, SM-88-
343, Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Giriraj) for yield, and keeping quality. In general,
differences due to genotypes, environment and genotype x environment
interaction were observed in all traits studied. SM-87-185 and SM-87-55
exhibited stable performance over a wide range of environmental conditions,
exhibiting high tuber yield, late blight resistance and good storage behavior.
Haase, et al. (2007) reported that cultivars belonging to very early and
early maturity type showed the largest relative increase in reducing sugars
concentrations due to storage. The medium-early cv. Agria and medium-late
8
cv. Marena proved to be best suited for processing into French fries under
conditions of organic farming, as only minor deviations from the highest
quality standards were established at harvest (quality index at 4.3 and 4.1,
respectively). A consistently high crisp quality was achieved by the medium-
early cv. Marlen, with L-values of 70.8 and 66.7 at harvest and after storage,
respectively. Overall, results show that the quality variables were mainly
affected by cultivar, season, storage and their interaction.
Kang et al. (2007) reported that the Kufri Pushkar (JW 160) is a high
yielding medium maturing white tuber variety which yielded higher than the
medium maturing cultivars. This cultivar produces large number of medium
size tubers which is a desired character.
Singh et al. (2007) carried out a study on Microtubers of five potato
cultivars for their growth and production of mini tubers. Higher germination,
number and yield of progeny tubers m-2 was recorded in Kufri Bahar.
Minimum mean tuber weight was recorded in Kufri Chipsona-2.
Basavaraja et al. (2008) reported that out of nine processing entries
evaluated for yield and adaptability, the introduced variety Atlantic was found
to be good adapter (2003-06), which recorded maximum total yield of 9.4 t/ha,
followed by MP/97-644 (8.64 t/ha), Kufri Chipsona-2 (7.82 t/ha) and MP/97-
583 (7.06 t/ha), being at par with each other. All the entries also produced at
par processing grade tuber yield of 3.92 to 7.11 t/ha. (The yield levels were
less, since 2003 & 2004 were drought years).
Mehdi et al. (2008) carried out experiment at Regional Agricultural Sub-
Station, SKUAST-K, and Kargil during 2004 and 05. The treatments consisted
of 4 different genotypes of potato (Kufri Chandramukhi, K. Jyoti, PP-48 and
PP-2500). Genotype PP-2500 recorded highest yield followed by Kufri
Chandramukhi, Kufri Jyoti and PP-48.
Rashid et al. (2008) studied the potato variety Provento from
Netherlands, and CIP (International Potato Center) clone 88.163 were
evaluated for commercial cultivation in Bangladesh. In respect of yield and
other qualities, both the genotypes were at par with the standard popular
Dutch varieties Diamant and Cardinal. The CIP clone 88.163 named as
9
“Saikat” (meaning sea shore) is recommended for cultivation in coastal areas
of the country.
Singh et al. (2008) reported that, the highest total tuber yield (48.1 tons
/ha) was obtained in MP/97-583, followed by MP/97-644 (46.4 tonnes/ha).
Processing- grade yield was also highest (42.3tonnes/ha) in MP/97-583. At
Indore, the highest total (29 tons/ha ) and processing grade yield (18.9
tons/ha) was obtained by MP/97-583. Kurfi Chipsona -3 can replace Kurfi
Chipsona -1 and Kurfi Chippsona-2 in the west central plain of India.
Ullah and Saikia (2008) examined seven potato varieties having
processing quality for two years (2004-05 and 2005-06) in a randomized block
design with three replications. They found that among all the varieties tested,
the yield performances of Kufri Chipsona-1, Kufri Chipsona-2, and Kufri
Chipsona-3 were superior over rest of the varieties, which produced higher
processing grade tuber during both the years.
Richardson (2009) conducted a variety trial on four sweet potato
varieties from April to October 2007 at the Gladstone Road Agricultural
Centre. The variety „Six Weeks‟, which is an early maturing variety with white
flesh and high dry matter content, produced the highest marketable yield at
9.4 t/ha. One other early maturing variety, „Antigua‟, yielded 7.3 t/ha and is
also suitable for local production. The other two varieties are late maturing
varieties and produced very low yields after six months of growth.
Ummyiah et al. (2010) reported that the genetic variability analysis of
twenty six genotypes of potato for seventeen yield and quality traits revealed
that the characters namely tuber yield plant-1, leaf area, average tuber weight,
stolon length, total soluble solids (TSS), yield plot-1 and yield ha-1, number of
stolons and number of tubers plant-1 exhibited high heritability with high
genetic gain indicating that these characters could be considered reliable
tools for selection as they indicate dominance of additive gene effect.
Egbe et al (2012) conducted a varietal trial of sweet potato to evaluate
performance of the cultivar on morphological (number of branches/plant,
internodes length, number of leaves per plant and vine length) and yield
characters (Root diameter and length, number of roots and weight saleable
10
roots). NARSP/05/022 gave the highest number of leaves, number of roots
(121817/ha) and weight (54151 kg/ha) at harvest. This variety was the only
one that had significantly higher saleable root weight than the check (TIS
87/0087).
Jatav et al. (2013) reported that Kufri Gaurav recorded maximum yield
and agronomic efficiency followed by Kufri Pushkar and Kufri Pukhraj.Kufri
Surya yielded minimum with least agronomic efficiencies.
Qasim et al. (2013) carried out an experiment at Himalayan Agricultural
Research Station (HARS), Kaghan during the summer season of 2005. The
results showed that maximum tuber growth(88.7%), number of stem per plant
(3.5), average number of tuber per plant (10.1) and yield per hectare (12.4
t/ha) were significantly different.
Wariboko et al. (2014) conducted an experiment using randomized
complete block design with three replications each in two locations
(Amassoma Wilberforce Island and Yenagoa, Bayelsa State) to evaluate the
performance of improved sweet potato varieties (Ex-Igbariam, TIS 8164,
199004-2 and TIS 87/0087 including Kukunduku local) from March to June
2010. There were significant differences among varieties. Ex-Igbariam and
TIS 87/0087 had higher fresh root yields of 7.39 and 4.17 t ha-1, respectively,
than others.
2.3 Quality parameters:
Singh et al. (2001) reported that in Malwa , Madhya Pradesh , India
.Kurfi chipsona -1 and kurfi chipsona -2 were found suitable for growing during
the main season. They are likely to provide a choice of potato cultivars to the
processor who was till now depending upon on Kurfi Jyoti and Kurfi Lauvakar
suitable for table consumption.
Zorzella et al. (2003) reported that the physical and chemical
characteristics of the genotypes significantly varied (5% level of significance)
between the spring and autumn crops. Nine or more genotypes registered
higher values for specific gravity, dry matter content, phenol content and
11
Phenol oxidase activity in the spring, and higher values for reducing sugar
content and poly phenolic oxidase activity in the autumn.
Kumar et al. (2004) conducted a field experiments to evaluate the
performance of two chipping cultivars Kufri Chipsona-1 and Kufri Chipsona-2.
They reported that total number of tubers (498.72 thousand /ha) and yield
(291.10 q/ha) were significantly low in cv. Kufri Chipsona-2. Tubers of cv.
Kufri Chipsona-2 had higher dry matter content than that of cv Kufri Chipsona-
1, while sugar content and chip colour score was low in cv Kufri Chipsona-1
as compared to cv. Kufri Chipsona-2.
Singh et al. (2005) reported that the light colour, good-quality French
fries was obtained in all the varieties or hybrid except 'Kufri Anand' at all the
locations in Gujarat, whereas 'Kufri Chipsona 1' and hybrid 'HT-92-621' gave
acceptable fries at Modipuram.
Singh et al. (2005a) reported that the physicochemical, rheological and
retrogradation properties of flours prepared from 6 Indian potato cultivars.
Flour from Kufri chandramukhi showed highest water absorption index,
consistency coefficients and lowest flow behavior indices. Kufri chandramukhi
potato flour exhibited the highest L value.
Kumar et al. (2007) reported that the between cultivars, the tuber and
biomass yield was higher in cv. Kufri Chipsona-1, whereas specific gravity,
tuber dry-matter percentage and crisp recovery were higher in cv. Kufri
Chipsona-2.
Kumar et al. (2007a) reported that Kufri Chipsona-1 produced a 23.6%
higher tuber yield plant-1 than Kufri Chipsona-2. Cultivar was the major factor
that influenced the tuber quality parameters (specific gravity, crisps colour).
Higher values of these quality traits were observed in Kufri Chipsona-2 as
compared to Kufri Chipsona1.
Shashi and Singh (2007) found that the tuber of Kufri Chipsona-2
exhibited maximum tuber dry matter and potassium content (23.54% and
270.17 mg 100-1 fresh wt., respectively). The genotypes Kufri Bahar showed
maximum ascorbic acid content (27.18 mg 100-1 fresh wt.) while J-93-86
showed highest vitamin A (48.69 I.U.).
12
Jaiswal et al. (2008) identified the processing varieties of potato for
Satpura plateau of Madhya Pradesh. Kurfi Chipsona -1, Kurfi Chipsona -2 and
Kurfi Surya had produced maximum dry matter as compared to Kurfi jyoti and
Kurfi Bahar.
Jaiswal et al. (2008) conducted a study for cultivars, three indigenously
developed Indian processing cultivars, i.e. Kufri Chipsona-1, Kufri Chipsona-2,
along with exotic cultivars Atlantic and check, cv. Kufri Surya, were evaluated
at JNKVV, Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Chhindwara over two years
(2006 and 2007) under satpura plateau zone of Madhya Pradesh condition.
Besides total and processing grade tuber yield, observation were recorded on
number of tubers per plant, average tuber with processing attributes, viz.
tuber dry matter, reducing sugar and chips colour. Kufri Chipsona-1 (376
q/ha) and Kufri Chipsona-2 (354.6 q/ha) were the top yielders and produced
the maximum processing grade tuber yield. Both the cultivers possessed high
tuber dry matter and low reducing sugar, and Kufri Chipsona-2 produced
acceptable light colour, chips were as, chip colour of Kufri Chipsona-1 was
nearer to acceptability limit. Exotic cultivar Atlantic, produced acceptable chip
colour, but its tuber yield was low. Both Kufri Chipsoan-1 and Kufri Chipsona-
2 recorded high field resistance to early blight and stem necrosis diseases
whereas, all other cultivars were found susceptible and low yielder.
Bhardwaj et al. (2008) studied the indigenous processing cultivars,
Kufri Chipsona-1, Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-3, Kufri Himsona and Kufri
Jyoti and two exotic cultivars Atlantic and FL 1533, in ten field trials conducted
at two locations in Mandi district (Barot and janjehli), one in Kangra district
(Pander) and two locations in Shimla District (Shimla and Kufri) over two
years (2006 and 2007). Observations on total and processing grade tuber
yield, tuber dry matter (%) and chip colour were recorded at 120 days after
planting. The pooled analysis of variance showed significant differences
among the genotypes and environment for all the traits studied indicating the
variable response of genotypes and environment. Kufri Himsona recorded the
maximum total tuber yield in most of the trials as compared to other
indigenous and exotic processing cultivars along with highly desirable
13
processing attributes i.e. more dry matter (>22%) and acceptable chip colour
(<2.50).
Muller et al. (2009) reported that the tubers were produced during
spring 2006 and fall 2007 growth seasons and evaluated for dry mass,
reduced sugars, starch and amylase contents and chip color. Spring growth
conditions maximized the gain from selection for reduced sugars, chip color,
starch and amylase. Similar selection gain for dry mass was found in spring
and fall seasons. The clones SMA508-2, SMA508-4 and SMA519-1 showed
the best combination of processing quality traits in both growing conditions
and higher than the best check.
Ooko and Kabira (2011) reported the suitability of three newly released
Kenyan potato varieties for processing. The three new potato varieties (Purple
Gold, Kenya Mpya and Sherekea) and two established varieties (Tigoni and
Dutch Robjin) used in this study were grown under standard conditions at the
National Potato Research Centre, Kenya. All the cultivars had tuber sizes
within recommended range for crisps (40-60 mm) and French fries (≤ 45 mm).
Dry matter contents differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) among the varieties
ranging from 20.81 % in Golden Purple to 25.77 % in Kenya Mpya. Varietal
differences in color and textural properties of crisps and French fries were
noted.
Vijaylakshman et al. (2008) reported the performance of ten processing
potato hybrids for yield and chip quality in southern transitional zone of
Karnataka was tested at Agriculture Research Station for two years during
2003-04 to 2004-05. They found that for processing grade tuber yield, cultivar
Atlantic recorded highest tuber dry matter followed by Kufri Chipsona-1.
Reducing sugars was lowest in MP/97-625, which determines the quality of
processed chips. In the organoleptic evaluation, the chips made out from Kufri
Chipsona-1 and Kufri Chipsona-2 was superior for the characters viz.,
appearance, taste, texture and aroma.
Kumar (2009) reported that the per cent loss due to rotting on weight
basis was high in K. Sadabahar (16.46%) followed by K. Khyati (15.96%) and
G-4 (11.69%). However, it was lowest in K. Surya (3.25%).
14
Ghulam Abbas et al. (2011) reported that the significant differences in
all the quality parameters were observed among the genotypes. The highest
dry matter was found in NARC 1-2006-1 (25.65%) while NARC 1-2006-2 had
the lowest dry matter (14.86%). The quality traits represented by specific
gravity, dry matter, sugars, starch, protein and ash are influenced by
genotype.
Rivera et al. (2011) reported that the cultivar Criolla Colombia and
clone 98-71.26 showed the best behavior for precooking processing. For
dehydrated flakes the tubers with 21-25% dry weight, large size and reducing
sugars below 0.1% exhibited the best processing behavior. In addition, it was
observed that the cultivar's environmental conditions affect tuber quality and
processing type to be performed.
Gautam et al. (2012) reported that the performance of seven potato
genotypes for good storability. The genotypes PRP 25861.1 and BSU-PO3
had higher dry matter percentage and were found superior for processing in to
chips.
Hafiz et al. (2012) reported that the significant differences in all the
quality parameters and various characteristics were found, while the
genotypes; 394021-120, 9625, Kiran, NARC 2002-1, NARC 1-2006-1 and VR
90-217 gave the highest results regarding yield and quality of potato tubers
except kiran, which has a high yield but low quality characters. Variations
existed among genotypes in tuber characteristics (skin color, tuber shape, eye
depth, flesh color and general appearance). The results regarding correlation
studies indicated that french fry color exhibited negative correlation with
reducing sugar (r=-0.7046), total sugars (r=-0.6659) and positive correlation
with dry matter (r=0.5013).
Kaur and Aggarwal (2014) reported fourteen potato cultivars including
11 Indian genotypes and 3 exotic genotypes were evaluated for processing
quality characteristics including specific gravity, dry matter, reducing sugars,
starch, protein and ash content. All the quality characteristics were affected by
cultivars.
15
2.4 Economics
Hosea et al. (2012) carried out a study which analyzed the profitability
of round potato and the implications for variety selections by using a sample
of 510 farmers drawn from three districts of the Southern Highlands of
Tanzania. The main question was whether smallholder round potato farmers
considered profit potentials or are there other factors in variety selections?
The results showed that Kagiri was the most profitable variety and there were
significant differences in profitability among varieties
Hamad et al. (2004) conducted an experiment to evaluate the main
factors affecting garlic productivity, to analyze the profitability of two varieties
of garlic (local and Chinese) and to draw some policy implications for
improving garlic productivity in the Northern State. The study used cross
sectional data in the agricultural season 2003/04. The survey results indicated
that farmers prefered growing the Chinese variety due to its high return but
still the number of farmers growing it was less compared to the local variety
(ratio 7:13) and the main reasons were the high price of Chinese variety
seeds and lack of knowledge about its cultural practices. The analysis of cost
of production showed that seeds cost amounted to 28.3% of the total cost of
production followed by land rent (17%), irrigation (16.3%), harvesting (11.7%),
weeding, (10.7%), fertilizer (5%), Zakat (4.7%), land preparation (3.3%) and
planting (3%).The results of the multiple regression analysis revealed that
fertilizers, seed rate and weeding were the most important factors affecting
garlic productivity in the study area. The budget analysis showed that the two
varieties of garlic grown were profitable and the Chinese variety was more
profitable than the local variety. For improving productivity, the study
recommended the supply of fertilizers, seeds and herbicides at the
appropriate time and reasonable prices in addition to the adoption of improved
cultural practices through extension services.
16
Chapter-III
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present investigation entitled “Study on Growth, Development and
Suitability of Some Improved Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Varieties for
Processing” was carried out in the experimental area of the Department of
Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Indore during the rabi season of 2014-15
under agro-climatic and soil conditions of Madhya Pradesh. The details of
methods and technique followed during the experiment are described below:
3.1 Experimental site
The present experiment was laid out in the field of the Research Farm
of Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Department of
Horticulture, College of Agriculture Indore, during (Rabi) 2014-2015. The
topography of the experimental site was almost uniform with an adequate
surface drainage.
3.2 Location and climate
Indore is situated in malwa plateau region in the western part of the
state of Madhya Pradesh at an altitude of 555.5 meters above mean sea level
(MSL). It is located at latitude 22.43o N and longitude of 75.66o E. It has
subtropical climate having a temperature range of 21o C to 45o C and 6o C to
31o C in summer and winter seasons, respectively. The rainfall in the region
has been mostly inadequate and erratic in most of the recent past seasons.
Late commencement, early withdrawal of monsoon and occurrence of two to
three dry spells during the rainy season are the common features. The mean
annual average rainfall is 964 mm. The meteorological data during crop
growth period from the 15th October, 2014 to 15th February, 2015 are given in
Table 3.1.
17
Table 3.1 Meteorological data observed during period of
investigation from October, 2014 to March, 2015
SMW Month and date RH (%) Temp (0C) Rainfall
(mm)
Wind speed
(km/hr) Max. Min.
42 Oct. 15 – Oct. 21 78.86 31.79 18.79 7.0 1.90
43 Oct. 22 – Oct. 28 81.71 31.21 15.71 0.0 1.74
44 Oct. 29 – Nov. 04 80.0 31.2 14.8 0.0 1.3
45 Nov. 05 –Nov.11 79.0 31.0 14.2 1.9 5.4
46 Nov.12 – Nov.18 81.0 30.2 17.7 0.0 2.01
47 Nov.19 – Nov.25 82.0 29.3 12.5 0.0 1.5
48 Nov.26 – Dec.02 80.0 29.8 11.7 0.0 1.3
49 Dec.03 – Dec.09 78.0 27.7 9.5 0.0 2.1
50 Dec.10 – Dec.16 82.0 25.7 8.5 5.8 3.1
51 Dec.17 – Dec.23 76.0 21.5 5.3 0.0 2.5
52 Dec. 24 – Dec.31 77.0 22.8 5.5 0.0 2.7
1 Jan. 01 - Jan.07 82.0 17.2 6.0 45.8 2.9
2 Jan. 08 – Jan. 14 77.0 23.6 6.7 0.0 1.7
3 Jan. 15 – Jan. 21 78.0 23.3 6.7 0.0 3.1
4 Jan. 22 – Jan.28 80.0 22.5 8.6 14.8 4.0
5 Jan. 29 – Feb.04 77.0 23.7 6.9 0.0 2.7
6 Feb. 05 – Feb.11 75.5 21.9 8.6 0.0 4.5
7 Feb.12 – Feb.18 70.85 29.0 9.9 0.0 2.5
Total - - - 75.3 -
Average 78.66 26.3 10.42 4.18 2.60
Source: AICRP for Dryland Agriculture; College of Agriculture, Indore
(M.P.)
The meteorological parameters during the crop season such as
minimum and maximum temperature, rainfall, wind speed and relative
humidity were recorded in AICRP for Dryland Agriculture; College of
Agriculture, Indore (M. P.) and are presented in Table 3.1. The data (Table
3.1 and Fig.1) indicate that the total rainfall received during crop growth period
was 75.3 mm. There were no rains during SMW 43-44, 46 to 49, 51-52, 2-3
and 05 to 07. The minimum and maximum temperature during crop growth
period varied 5.30C to 18.790C and from 17.20C to 31.790C, with season‟s
average values of 8.660C and 25.630 C respectively. The relative humidity and
wind speed ranged between 73.0 to 85.7 % and 1.4 to 4.6 km hrs-1 with
season‟s average of 78.60% and 2.76 km hrs-1.
18
3.3 Soil
The soil of the experimental field has been grouped under medium
black clay soil (Vertisols) belonging to Kamliakhedi series, which is a member
of fine, smectitic, hyperthermic family of Vertic, Ustochrepts. In order to
determine the textural class and fertility status of the experimental area, the
soil samples were collected randomly from each plot with the help of soil
auger before sowing from the experimental field. Sample from each
replication was drawn to study physio-chemical properties of the experimental
field. The data pertaining to various physio-chemical properties have been
presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Physio-chemical properties of soil collected from the
experimental field
S.No. Composition Content Category Method used
A. Mechanical composition
1 Sand (%) 10.4 - Bouyoucos Hydrometer method (Piper, 1967) 2 Silt (%) 35.5 -
3 Clay (%) 54.0 -
4 Textural class Clayey
B. Chemical composition
S.No. Analysis Values Category Method adopted
1. Soil pH 7.6 Slightly alkaline
Glass electrode method (pH meter) (Jackson, 1967)
2. Electrical conductivity (ds/m)
0.35 Normal Conductivity meter at 25ºC (Jackson, 1967)
3. Organic carbon (%)
0.72 Medium Wakley and Black rapid titration method (Wakley & Black 1934)
4. Available Nitrogen (kg N /ha)
216.0 Low Alkaline permanganate method (Jackson 1967)
5. Available phosphorus (kg P2O5 /ha)
12.2 Medium Olsen‟s method (Jackson, 1967)
6. Available potash (kg K2O /ha)
420 High Flame photometer (Jackson, 1967)
Source: - All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Salt Affected Soils and
Use of Saline Water in Agriculture, College of Agriculture, Indore.
19
The physio-chemical analysis of soil showed that the soil of
experimental site was predominantly clayey in texture. The organic carbon
content (0.26%) and available nitrogen (216.0 kg ha-1) were low. The
available phosphorus (12.2 kg ha-1) and potash (420 kg ha-1) were medium
and high respectively. The soil pH (7.6) was indicating slightly alkaline in
nature. Electrical conductivity (0.35 dS m-1) of soil was found normal (Table
3.2).
3.4 Cropping history of the experimental field
The knowledge about previous crops on experimental field is essential
to know its previous history. The experimental field was planted to different
crops during past 3 years. A brief history of crops sequence followed during
the last three years is shown in the Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Cropping history of experimental field
Year Kharif Rabi Summer
2012-2013 Okra cabbage Fallow
2013- 2014 Fallow Potato Fallow
2014-2015 Cowpea Present experiment -
20
3.5 Experimental material
The experimental material for this study comprised of 10
varieties as treatment is presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Details of Varieties:
S. No. Treatment Varieties
1 T1 Kufri Chipsona-1
2 T2 Kufri Chipsona-2
3 T3 Kufri Chipsona-3
4 T4 Kufri Chipsona-4
5 T5 Kufri Chandramukhi
6 T6 Kufri Arun
7 T7 Kufri Lauvkar
8 T8 Kufri Surya
9 T9 Kufri Jawahar
10 T10 Kufri Jyoti
21
3.6 Experimental details
Table 3.5: Experimental design
Crop : Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Season : 2014-15
Design : Randomized Completely Block Design
Replication : Three
Treatment : Ten
Total number of plots : 30
Gross area of experimental field : 456.00 sq.m
Net area of experiment field : 270.00 sq.m
Gross plot size : 3.00 X 3.00 sq.m
Row to row distance : 60 cm
Plant to plant distance : 20 cm
Number of rows in each plot : 5
Number of plants for
observation per plot
: 5
Plot to plot distance : 1.0 m
Distance between replication : 1.5 m
Date of sowing : 18 – 10 – 2014
Manure and fertilizers applied : FYM 20tones, NPK 120:80:80 kg ha-1
22
Plan of layout
24.0 m
3.0m 1.5m
T5 T10 R
ep
lica
tio
n b
ord
er
T4 T9
Re
plica
tio
n b
ord
er
T3 T8
T4 T9 T3 T8 T1 T5
T3 T8 T2 T7 T2 T9
T2 T7 T1 T6 T6 T10
T1 T6 T10 T5 T7 T4
R-I R-II R-III
Fig:2 Plan of the layout of experimental plot
E
W
1.0m
3.0 m
19.0 m
N S
23
3.7 Agronomical Operations
3.7.1 Land preparation
The experimental plot was ploughed and harrowed in order to bring the
soil in well-pulverized condition. FYM was applied @ 20t ha-1. Plots were made
according to the layout plan after leveling.
3.7.2 Planting
Pre-planting seed treatment was done with Mancozeb 0.2% solution
for 10 minutes and spread at a cool and moist place to avoid fungal
infection. Healthy, uniform, medium sized tubers (35 – 45 mm or 45 – 50
g) at the rate of 30 - 35q ha-1 were used. Shallow furrows were opened 6
cm apart with the help of pickaxe manually and tubers were dibbled at a
spacing of 60 cm row to row and 20 cm plant to plant.
A week after transplanting, gap filling was done. All the other
recommended package of practices was followed to raise a healthy crop.
3.7.3 Irrigation
The first irrigation was given immediately after planting to ensure
proper establishment of sprout. Subsequent irrigation was given at 15
days interval up to month of January and at an interval of 10 days during
the month of February.
3.7.4 Intercultural operations
Earthing-up and weeding of potato are done as soon as weeds
emerge, but preferably when potato plants are about 8 – 10 cm high. The
first earthing up is done at 25 – 30 days after planting and second
earthing up at 55 – 60 days after planting.
3.7.5 Fertilizer Application
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied, through urea, single
super phosphate and muriate of potash respectively. A uniform dose of 120 kg N
ha-1, 80 kg P ha-1 and 80 kg K ha-1 was applied to all the plots. Full quantity of
24
phosphorus and potassium fertilizer along with half dose of nitrogen was applied
before planting. While, the rest nitrogen was applied during earthing up at 25-
30 DAP.
3.7.6 Plant protection measures:
The crop was sprayed with imidachlorprid 0.005% or thiomethoxan
0.025% for control of White fly and Jassid, to keep the crop free from pest
during crop growth period.
3.8 Sampling
Sampling was done at 30 days up to harvest for growth analysis.
Five plants were randomly selected from each varieties and replication for
the study.
3.9 Observation recorded
The data were recorded on various parameters during the period of
experimentation. The data were recorded as per standard procedure.
3.9.1 Morphological Parameters
3.9.1.1 Days to 50%germination
Number of days taken beginning from the planting to the initiation of
germination in each variety was recorded separately.
3.9.1.2 Number of sprouts per plant
The total number of sprouts per plant of the tagged plants were counted at
30 DAP and averaged to get the number of sprouts per plant.
3.9.1.3 Plant height (cm)
The height of the main stem from the ground level to the apical bud (leaf
apex) was measured with the meter scale at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after
planting and at harvest.
25
3.9.1.4 Diameter of main stem (cm)
Diameter of stem of the all observational plants from each plot was
recorded by using the thread, this thread put on the scale to measure the
readings and it was considered as diameter of stem and expressed in centimeter.
3.9.1.5 Number of leaves per plant
The numbers of leaves of each tagged plant in all the varieties were
counted at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting and at harvest.
3.9.1.6 Leaf area per plant (cm2)
At random three plants from each genotype and replication were
uprooted and cleaned. The assimilatory surface area (A) was recorded by
using electronic leaf area meter (Li Cor 3000) at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days
after transplanting.
3.9.1.7 Dry weight of the plant (g)
At random three plants of potato from each varieties and replication were
uprooted, cleaned and they were dried in the oven at 600C after sun drying up to
brittle and moisture free and then were weighted at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after
planting and at harvest.
3.9.2 Growth analytical Parameters
3.9.2.1 Leaf area index (LAI)
The assimilatory surface area (A) was recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP.
In this process three plants from each genotype and replications are selected at
random and its reading was taken by using electronic leaf area meter (Li Cor
3000). LAI is the leaf area (A) or the assimilatory surface area over a certain
ground area (P) and is calculated by the formula given by (Watson, 1952)
A
LAI=
P
26
where,
A= Leaf area
P= Ground area
3.9.2.2 NAR (Net assimilation rate)
It is the measurement of the rate of photosynthesis per unit time on the
basis of dry matter and is expressed as g/cm2/day. It was worked out as per the
following formula (Watson, 1952).
W2 - W1 log A2 – log A1
NAR = X
A2 – A1 (t2 – t1)
Where,
A1 and W1 are the leaf area and dry weight of the plant sample
respectively at time t1 and A2 and W2 are the leaf area and dry weight of
the plant sample respectively at time t2.
3.9.2.3 Crop growth rate
Crop growth rate is also called the rate of dry matter production
(Blackman and Black, 1968). The crop growth rate is expressed as
g/plant/day.
W2 - W1
CGR =
P (T2 – T1)
where,
P = Ground area on which W1 and W2 were estimated.
W1= Dry weight of plant at 1st observation.
W2= Dry weight of plant at 2nd observation.
T1 & T2 = interval between observation.
27
3.9.3 Yield Parameters
3.9.3.1 Days to haulm cutting
The haulm cutting was done 15 days before harvesting.
3.9.3.2 Days to maturity
Potato crops show signs of maturity (like leaves turn yellow, and are shed
in course of time and haulms dry up and die) which was taken to be an indication
of maturity and the time of maturity indications differs from early, medium and
late varieties.
3.9.3.3 Number of tubers per plant
The number of tubers harvested from five randomly selected plants
in each genotype was collected during harvesting counted and average
tubers per plant were calculated.
3.9.3.4 Number of rotted tubers per plant
The tagged plants were harvested and the number of rotted tubers per
plant was counted.
3.9.3.5 Weight of rotted tubers per plant
The tagged plants were harvested and the weight of rotted tubers per
plant was recorded separately with the help of electronic weighing balance
and average was worked out for each varieties.
3.9.3.6 Total tubers yield per plot
Tubers of all the plants in each plot including 5 observational plants were
harvested and weighted separately for total yield per plot and expressed in kg
per plot.
28
3.9.3.7 Total tubers yield per hectare (q ha-1)
Total tuber yield (kg) per plot was converted in quintals per hectare by
multiplying with factor.
3.9.3.8 Marketable yield per plot
The total tubers obtained from each plot were sorted out into different
grades according to weight i.e. small size < 50 g, medium 50 – 100g and big
sized > 100g. The total weight of medium and big size tubers were recorded
separately for marketable tuber yield per plot.
3.9.3.9 Marketable yield per hectare (q ha-1)
Marketable tuber yield per plot was converted in quintals per hectare by
multiplying with factor.
3.9.3.10 Harvest index
Harvest index is expressed as the ratio of economical yield and
biological yield.
Economical yield (gm)
Harvest index =
Biological yield (gm)
3.9.4 Quality Parameters
3.9.4.1 Making of flour
The potato flour was made from whole potato (including potato skin) they
were cooked, dried and then grinds to make the flour. The quality of flour was
measured according to its colour.
3.9.4.2 Quality of chips
The chips were prepared from tubers of tagged plants by chips making
machine. The sensory observations were recorded for color and taste of chips.
29
3.9.4.3 Starch content
To extract the starch, the tubers of the tagged plants are crushed; the
starch grains are released from the destroyed cells. The starch is then washed
out and dried to powder.
3.9.5 Incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence
The numbers of insect-pest were counted manually in three leaves
selected randomly from each tagged plant in all the varieties at 30, 45, 60 and 75
days after planting.
3.9.6 Computation of Economics of treatments
Several economic indices are available to evaluate the profitability of
cropping systems. No single index is capable of giving good comparison of
different varieties/hybrids and so a number of indices are used together to
assess the economic viability of the system. Since the price of farm products
changes from year to year and season to season and also place to place, the
profitability of the system also changes accordingly. The procedure used for
working out economics of different treatments under consideration was as
suggested by Yang et al. (1989).
3.9.5.1 Gross Monetary Returns (Rs/ha)
Gross returns are the total monetary value of economic produce and
byproducts obtained from the crop raised in the different treatments and is
calculated based on the local market prices.
3.9.5.2 Cost of Cultivation (Rs/ha)
Cost of cultivation is the total expenditure incurred for raising crop in a
treatment. The cost included for this purpose consists of own or hired human
labour, owned or hired bullock labour, value of seed, manures, fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides and irrigation charges etc.
30
3.9.5.3 Net monetary returns (Rs/ha)
It is computed by subtracting cost of cultivation from gross returns. It is
good indicator of suitability of a cropping system since this represents the actual
income of the farmer. Monetary returns from different treatments were calculated
with the help of prevailing market rates of produce and different inputs used in
the experiments.
Net monetary returns (Rs/ha) = Gross return (Rs/ha) – Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)
3.9.5.4 Benefit cost ratio
It is the ratio of gross returns to cost of cultivation. It is expressed as
returns per rupee invested. This index provides an estimate of the benefit to the
farmer derived from the expenditure he incurs in adopting a particular cropping
system. Any value above 2.0 is considered safe as the farmer gets Rs. 2 for
every rupee invested.
Benefit cost ratio = Gross return (Rs/ha)/ Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha)
3.10 Statistical analysis
The data obtained with respect to all the characters has been
subjected to the following statistical analysis.
3.10.1 Mean: It was calculated by using following formula.
Mean = =
Where,
Σx = Sum of all the observation
n = Number of observation
∑x
n
31
3.10.2 Analysis of variance
The observation recorded for the different characters were
statistically analyzed by the methods of analysis of variance as described
by Fisher (1938). The significance of different treatments were judged at
5% level of “F” test. The skeleton of analysis of variance used was as
follows:
Table 3.5 ANOVA for Randomized Completely Block Design
Source of variation
D.F. SS MSS F Calculated
F value at 5%
Replication r-1
Varieties v-1
Error (r-1)(v-1)
Total rv-1
A significant value of F test indicates that the test entries differ
significantly among themselves, which requires computing.
CD at 5% prob. Level = SE diff x t5% table value
Where
MSE = Mean square error (Error variance)
r = Number of replication
C VEMS
GMx. . 100
r
EMS m ± S E
diff SE 2
r
EMS
32
, C.V. = Coefficient of variation
SEm ± = Standard error of means
S E diff = Standard error of difference
C.D. = Critical difference
t 5% = t, table value 5% probability level at error d.f.
33
Chapter-IV
RESULT
Various growth parameters, yield parameters, yield, quality and
economics of potato obtained under the study entitled “Study on Growth,
Development and Suitability of Some Improved Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Varieties for Processing”are analyzed statistically and presented here as under:
4.1 Qualitative traits/characters
4.1.1 Days to 50% germination
The data on days to 50% germination as influence by different varieties
are given in Table 4.1, presented in Fig. 3 and depicted in Appendix – I clearly
indicated that the days to 50% germination responded significantly due to
different varieties.
Table 4.1 Days to 50% germination and Number of sprouts per plant
of different potato varieties.
S. No. Varieties Days to 50% germination
Number of sprouts per plant
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 22.33 3.9
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 22.22 3.2
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 21.34 4.01
4. Kufri Chipsona-4 23.15 2.93
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 20.20 3.83
6. Kufri Arun 19.00 4.14
7. Kufri Lauvkar 21.59 3.40
8. Kufri Surya 21.49 3.46
9. Kufri Jawahar 22.15 3.27
10. Kufri Jyoti 20.60 3.74
SEm± 0.44 0.16
C.D. at 5% level 1.31 0.50
34
Significantly minimum days required for 50 % germination was recorded
in variety Kufri Arun (19.00) which was at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (20.20
days) and followed by Kufri Jyoti (20.60 days) as compared to other varieties.
While, maximum (23.16) days was recorded in Kufri Chipsona- 4.
4.1.2 Number of sprouts per plant
The data for different varieties with respect to the number of sprouts per
plant is summarized in Table 4.1 and illustrated in Fig. 3 and depicted in
Appendix –II.
At 30 DAP significantly maximum number of sprouts per plant was
recorded in the Variety Kufri arun (4.14) followed by and at par with Kufri
chipsona-3 (4.01), Kufri chipsona-1 (3.9), Kufri chandramukhi (3.83) and Kufri
jyoti (3.74). While, minimum number of sprouts per plant was observed in Kufri
Chipsona-4 (2.93).
4.1.3 Plant height (cm)
The plant height of potato plant as influenced by different varieties is given
in Table 4.2 graphically presented in Fig. 4 and depicted in Appendix – III to VI.
The data clearly indicated that the plant height of potato responded significantly
due to different varieties at all the growth stages under present studies.
Plant height was recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting. At 30
days after planting, significantly maximum plant height was recorded in variety
Kufri Arun (30.42 cm) which was followed by all other varieties except Kufri
Jawahar(27.08 cm) and Kufri Chipsona- 2 (26.00 cm).
At 45 days after planting, the significantly maximum (46.51 cm) plant
height was recorded in variety Kufri Arun followed by Kufri Chandramukhi (45.41
cm), Kufri jyoti (43.12 cm) and Kufri Lavkar (42.31 cm) as compared to other
varieties. While, the minimum plant height (32.45 cm) was recorded in variety
Kufri Chipsona- 2.
With regards to 60 DAP, the significantly maximum plant height was
recorded in variety Kufri Arun (62.95 cm), followed by and at par with Kufri
35
Chandramukhi (60.38 cm) over all other varieties. However, the minimum value
of plant height was observed in variety Kufri Chipsona- 2 (42.37 cm).
At 75 days after planting, significantly the maximum (63.92 cm) plant
height was recorded in variety Kufri Arun followed by and at par with Kufri
Chandramukhi (62.18 cm), Kufri jyoti (61.45 cm), Kufri Lavkar (59.91 cm) Kufri
surya (58.91 cm) and Kufri chipsona -1 (58.46 cm) as compared to other
varieties. While, the minimum plant height (43.50 cm) was recorded in variety
Kufri Chipsona- 2.
Table 4.2 Plant height (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth
stages.
S.No. Varieties Plant height (cm)
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 27.76 41.15 56.00 58.46
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 26.00 32.45 42.37 43.50
3. Kufri Chipsona-3 28.29 33.68 42.81 56.51
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 28.20 37.28 43.77 45.10
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 29.5 45.41 60.38 62.18
6. Kufri Arun 30.42 46.51 62.95 63.92
7. Kufri Lauvkar 27.3 43.31 54.18 59.12
8. Kufri Surya 27.88 42.29 57.62 58.91
9. Kufri Jawahar 27.08 40.54 47.43 53.53
10. Kufri Jyoti 28.44 43.47 59.68 61.45
SEm± 1.07 1.16 0.90 2.40
C.D. at 5% level 3.18 3.46 2.67 7.15
4.1.4 Diameter of stem (cm)
The diameter of stem of different varieties is given in Table 4.3, presented
in Fig. 5 and depicted in Appendix-VII to X.
36
Diameter of stem was recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP. At 30 DAP,
the significantly maximum diameter of stem was recorded in Kufri Arun (3.03 cm)
followed by all other varieties and were at par with each other as compared to
Kufri Chipsona-3 (2.40cm) and Kufri Chipsona-4 (2.70 cm). However, minimum
diameter of stem was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona-3 (2.40 cm) and Kufri
Chipsona- 4(2.70 cm).
Table 4.3 Diameter of stem (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth
stages.
S.
No.
Varieties Diameter of stem (cm)
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 2.82 3.11 3.41 3.82
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 2.76 2.99 3.33 3.90
3. Kufri Chipsona-3 2.40 3.02 3.41 3.92
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 2.70 2.94 3.00 3.05
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 2.97 3.18 3.80 4.03
6. Kufri Arun 3.03 3.28 3.88 4.09
7. Kufri Lauvkar 2.85 3.16 3.65 3.96
8. Kufri Surya 2.77 3.06 3.60 3.86
9. Kufri Jawahar 2.79 3.02 3.27 3.78
10. Kufri Jyoti 2.95 3.14 3.76 4.01
SEm± 0.10 0.05 0.12 0.05
C.D. at 5% level 0.32 0.17 0.38 0.16
At 45 DAP, the significantly maximum diameter of stem was recorded in
Kufri Arun (3.28 cm) followed by all other varieties and were at par with each
other as compared to Kufri Chipsona-3 (3.02 cm) and Kufri Chipsona-4 (2.94
cm). However, minimum diameter of stem was recorded in variety Kufri
Chipsona-3 (3.02 cm) and Kufri Chipsona- 4(2.94 cm).
In case of 60 days after planting, the significantly maximum diameter of
stem was recorded in variety Kufri Arun (3.88 cm) which was followed by and at
37
par with Kufri Chandramukhi (3.80 cm), Kufri Jyoti (3.76 cm), Kufri Lauvkar (3.65
cm) and Kufri Surya (3.60 cm) over other varieties. However, minimum diameter
of stem was observed in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4 (3.00 cm).
Similar trend was recorded at 75 days after planting the significantly
maximum diameter of stem was recorded in variety Kufri Arun (4.09cm) which
was followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (4.03 cm), Kufri Jyoti
(4.01cm) and Kufri Lauvkar (3.96 cm) over all other varieties. However, minimum
diameter of stem was observed in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4 (3.05 cm).
4.1.5 Number of leaves per plant
The number of leaves per plant of different varieties is given in Table 4.4.
The results were graphically presented in Fig. 6 and depicted in Appendix-XI to
XIV.
Number of leaves per plant was recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days
after planting. At 30 days after planting, the significantly the maximum 11.14
leaves per plant were recorded in variety Kufri Arun followed by Kufri
Chandramukhi (10.74), Kufri Jyoti (10.12) and Kufri Lavkar (9.83) as compared to
other varieties. However, Kufri chandramukhi was found at par with variety Kufri
Arun. While, the minimum leaves per plant (7.56) were recorded in variety Kufri
Chipsona- 4.
The variety Kufri Arun was recorded significantly maximum 17.35 leaves
per plant followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (16.29 leaves) and Kufri
Jyoti (15.57 leaves) as compared to other varieties. However, the minimum
number of leaves per plant (11.92) were recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4 at
45 days after planting.
In case of 60 days after planting, the significantly the maximum 19.76
leaves per plant was recorded in variety Kufri Arun followed byand at par with
Kufri Chandramukhi (18.35) and Kufri Jyoti (17.59) as compared to other
varieties. While, minimum number of leaves per plant was observed in variety
Kufri Chipsona- 4 (14.00) at this stage of crop growth.
38
The similar trend was observed at 75 days after planting, the significantly
maximum 20.11 leaves per plant were recorded in variety Kufri Arun followed by
and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (19.13), Kufri Jyoti (18.37) and Kufri
chipsona-2 (18.82) as compared to other varieties. While, it was observed that
the minimum number of leaves were attained by variety Kufri Chipsona- 4
(15.06).
Table 4.4 Number of leaves per plant of potato varieties at different plant
growth stages.
S. No. Varieties No. of leaves per plant
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 9.12 14.15 16.68 17.72
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 9.25 13.92 16.85 18.28
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 8.35 13.37 15.68 16.52
4. Kufri Chipsona-4 7.56 11.92 14.00 15.06
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 10.74 16.29 18.35 19.13
6. Kufri Arun 11.14 17.35 19.76 20.11
7. Kufri Lauvkar 9.83 14.62 16.86 17.99
8. Kufri Surya 8.57 12.78 15.93 16.82
9. Kufri Jawahar 9.37 14.34 16.56 17.41
10. Kufri Jyoti 7.12 15.57 17.59 18.37
SEm± 0.19 0.68 0.82 0.63
C.D. at 5% level 0.59 2.02 2.45 1.89
4.1.6 Leaf length (cm)
The leaf length was recorded and has been presented in Table 4.5,
illustrated through Fig. 7 and depicted in Appendix-XV to XVIII.
At 30 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf length 5.23 cm
was recorded under the varieties Kufri Arun followed by and at par with Kufri
Chandramukhi (5.12 cm), Kufri Jyoti (5.08 cm), Kufri chipsona-1 (4.82 cm) and
39
kufri Lauvkar (4.73) over other varieties. While, the minimum leaf length (3.97
cm) was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4.
At 45 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf length 5.79 cm
was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun followed by and at par with Kufri
Chandramukhi (5.69 cm) and Kufri Jyoti (5.43 cm) as compared to other
varieties. However, Kufri Arun, Kufri Chandramukhi and Kufri Jyoti were found at
par with each other. While, the minimum leaf length (4.67 cm) was recorded in
variety Kufri Chipsona- 4.
Table 4.5 Leaf length (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth
stages.
S.
No.
Varieties Leaf length (cm)
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 4.82 5.36 5.42 5.48
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 4.52 5.12 5.31 5.42
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 4.68 5.26 5.35 5.44
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 3.97 4.67 4.97 5.06
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 5.12 5.69 5.73 5.88
6. Kufri Arun 5.23 5.79 5.85 5.96
7. Kufri Lauvkar 4.73 5.27 5.40 5.47
8. Kufri Surya 4.61 5.17 5.30 5.37
9. Kufri Jawahar 4.50 5.11 5.33 5.39
10. Kufri Jyoti 5.08 5.43 5.47 5.85
SEm± 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.13
C.D. at 5% level 0.50 0.37 0.35 0.40
In case of 60 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf length
5.85 cm was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun followed by and at par with
Kufri Chandramukhi (5.73 cm) as compared to other varieties. While, the
minimum leaf length was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4 (4.97 cm).
40
In case of 75 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf length
5.96 cm was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun followed by and at par with
Kufri Chandramukhi (5.88 cm) and Kufri Jyoti (5.85 cm) as compared to other
varieties. Whereas, leaf length was observed minimum in variety Kufri Chipsona-
4 (5.06 cm).
4.1.7 Leaf width (cm)
The leaf width was recorded and has been presented in Table 4.6, Fig. 8
and depicted in Appendix-XIX to XXII.
At 30 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf width 3.85 cm
was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun which was followed by and at par with
Kufri Chandramukhi (3.80 cm), Kufri jyoti (3.72 cm) and Kufri Lauvkar (3.65 cm)
over all other varieties. While, the minimum leaf width (3.46 cm) was recorded in
variety Kufri Chipsona- 4.
Table 4.6: Leaf width (cm) of potato varieties at different plant growth
stages.
S.
No.
Varieties Leaf width (cm)
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 3.55 3.65 3.76 3.82
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 3.50 3.62 3.83 3.93
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 3.52 3.55 3.72 3.80
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 3.46 3.50 3.68 3.75
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 3.80 4.25 4.45 4.62
6. Kufri Arun 3.85 4.46 4.59 4.70
7. Kufri Lauvkar 3.65 4.18 4.32 4.45
8. Kufri Surya 3.53 4.12 4.23 4.48
9. Kufri Jawahar 3.59 4.07 4.10 4.21
10. Kufri Jyoti 3.72 4.22 4.42 4.52
SEm± 0.06 0.18 0.17 0.22
C.D. at 5% level 0.20 0.55 0.50 0.68
41
At 45 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf width 4.46 cm
was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun followed by Kufri Chandramukhi (4.25
cm), Kufri Jyoti (4.22 cm) and Kufri Lauvkar (4.18 cm) as compared to other
varieties. However, variety Kufri Arun was found at par with Kufri Chandramukhi,
Kufri Jyoti, Kufri Lavkar, Kufri Surya and Kufri Jawahar. While, minimum leaf
width (3.50 cm) was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4.
At 60 days after planting, the significantly maximum leaf width 4.59 cm
was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun followed by Kufri Chandramukhi (4.45
cm) and Kufri Jyoti (4.42 cm) and at par with all other varieties over Chipsona
varieties. While, the minimum leaf width (3.68 cm) was recorded in variety Kufri
Chipsona- 4.
The similar trend was recorded at 75 days after planting, the significantly
maximum leaf width 4.70 cm was recorded under the variety Kufri Arun which
was followed by Kufri Chandramukhi (4.62 cm), Kufri Jyoti (4.52 cm) and at par
with all other varieties over Chipsona varieties. While, the minimum leaf width
(3.75 cm) was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4.
4.1.8 Leaf area per plant (cm 2)
The leaf area per plant (cm2) of different varieties is given in Table 4.7
illustrated in Fig. 9 and depicted in Appendix-XXIII to XXVI. The observation for
Leaf area per plant (cm2) was recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP.
The leaf area per plant (cm2) of potato increased significantly with the
different varieties. Kufri Arun (208.30 cm2) recorded significantly maximum
leaf area per plant followed by Kufri Chandramukhi (205.51 cm2). While,
minimum leaf area per plant (cm2) was observed in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (142.82
cm2) at 30 DAP.
At 45 DAP, variety Kufri Arun recorded the significantly maximum
(396.92 cm2) leaf area per plant followed by and at par with Kufri
Chandramukhi (355.41 cm2) as compared to all other varieties. However, the
42
minimum value of leaf area per plant (cm2) was recorded in variety Kufri
Chipsona- 4 (244.07 cm2).
Table 4.7 Leaf area per plant (cm2) of potato varieties at different plant
growth stages.
S. No. Varieties Leaf area plant (cm2)
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 152.20 267.62 364.88 410.82
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 149.98 252.71 370.06 397.93
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 148.91 276.71 324.08 382.75
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 142.82 244.07 298.76 378.78
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 205.51 355.41 438.91 482.73
6. Kufri Arun 208.30 396.92 482.13 497.23
7. Kufri Lauvkar 186.82 298.24 379.89 430.12
8. Kufri Surya 146.47 267.89 342.41 386.82
9. Kufri Jawahar 151.78 322.26 362.74 394.31
10. Kufri Jyoti 155.26 322.52 418.39 430.42
SEm± 4.07 16.45 13.18 10.84
C.D. at 5% level 12.09 48.88 39.18 32.23
In case of 60 DAP, variety Kufri Arun (482.13cm2 recorded the
significantly maximum leaf area per plant as compared to all other varieties.
while, the minimum value of leaf area per plant (cm2) was observed in Kufri
Chipsona- 4 (298.76 cm2).
At 75 DAP, variety Kufri Arun recorded the significantly maximum
(497.23cm2) leaf area per plant followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi
(482.73 cm2) as compared to all other varieties. However, Kufri Chipsona- 4
(378.78 cm2) records the minimum value for leaf area per plant (cm2).
4.1.9. Dry weight per plant (g)
The dry weight per plant (g) of different varieties is given in Table 4.8,
graphically presented in Fig. 10 and depicted in Appendix XXVII to XXX.
43
Dry weight per plant (g) was recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP. At
30 DAP, significantly the maximum dry weight per plant (g) was recorded in Kufri
Arun (22.32 g) followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (21.42 g), Kufri
Jyoti (20.31 g), Kufri Lauvkar (19.87 g), Kufri Jawahar (19.67 g) and Kufri
Chipsona- 1 as compared to other varieties. Minimum dry weight per plant (g)
was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona-4 (15.02 g).
At 45 DAP; the significantly maximum dry weight per plant (g) was
recorded in Kufri Arun (24.37 g) over all other varieties. Minimum dry weight per
plant (g) was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4(15.46 g).
In case of 60 days after planting, the significantly maximum dry weight per
plant (g) was recorded in variety Kufri Arun (42.97 g) over all other varieties.
Minimum dry weight per plant (g) was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4
(17.17 g).
Table 4.8 Dry weight per plant (g) of potato varieties at different plant
growth stages.
S. No. Varieties Dry weight per plant (g)
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 19.32 20.44 29.90 30.84
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 15.85 16.38 20.71 21.33
3. Kufri Chipsona-3 15.75 16.20 19.66 20.42
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 15.02 15.46 17.17 17.65
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 21.42 23.35 40.25 42.2
6. Kufri Arun 22.32 24.37 42.97 44.96
7. Kufri Lauvkar 19.87 21.19 32.30 33.78
8. Kufri Surya 16.52 17.55 26.42 27.67
9. Kufri Jawahar 19.67 20.75 30.15 31.52
10. Kufri Jyoti 20.31 22.05 38.67 40.36
SEm± 1.04 0.036 0.102 0.033
C.D. at 5% level 3.10 0.109 0.303 0.099
44
Similar trend was recorded at 75 days after planting and the significantly
maximum dry weight per plant (g) was recorded in variety Kufri Arun (44.96 g)
over all other varieties. However, the minimum dry weight per plant (g) was
recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4(17.65 g).
4.2 Growth analytical traits
4.2.1 Leaf area index
The leaf area index of different varieties is given in Table 4.8 at 30, 45, 60
and 75 DAP, graphical presented in Fig. 11 and depicted in Appendix- XXXI to
XXXIV.
In case of 30 DAP, Kufri Arun recorded significantly maximum (0.176) leaf
area index followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (0.168), as compared
to all other varieties. While, the minimum leaf area index was recorded in variety
Kufri Chipsona- 4 (0.114).
Table 4.9: Leaf area index of potato varieties at different plant growth
stages.
S. No. Varieties Leaf area index
30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 0.124 0.209 0.311 0.325
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 0.121 0.207 0.301 0.344
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 0.122 0.232 0.274 0.299
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 0.114 0.182 0.248 0.289
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 0.168 0.302 0.352 0.382
6. Kufri Arun 0.176 0.335 0.408 0.435
7. Kufri Lauvkar 0.130 0.269 0.320 0.351
8. Kufri Surya 0.120 0.219 0.308 0.340
9. Kufri Jawahar 0.125 0.252 0.312 0.336
10. Kufri Jyoti 0.150 0.310 0.334 0.358
SEm± 0.007 0.012 0.016 0.017
C.D. at 5% level 0.023 0.037 0.049 0.052
45
At 45 DAP, variety Kufri Arun (0.335) recorded significantly maximum
leaf area index followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (0.302) and Kufri
Jyoti (0.310) as compared to all other varieties. However, minimum leaf area
index was observed in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4 (0.182).
At 60 DAP, variety Kufri Arun (0.408) recorded significantly maximum
leaf area index as compared to other varieties. However, minimum leaf area
index was recorded in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4(0.248).
In case of 75 DAP, variety Kufri Arun (0.435) recorded significantly
maximum leaf area index as compared to all other varieties. However,
minimum leaf area index was observed in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4(0.289).
4.2.2 Net assimilation rate (g/cm2 /day)
The data of net assimilation rate (g/cm2/day) of different varieties is given
in Table 4.10 at 45, 60 and 75 DAP, graphically presented in Fig. 12 and
illustrated in Appendix-XXXV to XXXVII.
Table 4.10 Net assimilation rate (g/cm2/day) of potato varieties at different
plant growth stages.
S. No. Varieties NAR (g/cm2 /day)
30-45 DAP 45-60 DAP 60-75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 0.0016 0.0318 0.0052
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 0.0014 0.0156 0.0039
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 0.0019 0.0168 0.0045
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 0.0007 0.0054 0.0019
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 0.0040 0.0550 0.0078
6. Kufri Arun 0.0048 0.0754 0.0088
7. Kufri Lauvkar 0.0020 0.0339 0.0062
8. Kufri Surya 0.0017 0.0325 0.0058
9. Kufri Jawahar 0.0011 0.0221 0.0048
10. Kufri Jyoti 0.0038 0.0412 0.0069
SEm± 0.00025 0.0013 0.00065
C.D. at 5% level 0.00076 0.0041 0.0019
The data presented in Table 4.11 clearly showed that there was significant
difference amongst the varieties at all stages of observations. The NAR in
46
general increased at 60 DAP in all the varieties. At 45 DAP, the maximum
(0.0048 g/cm2/day) net assimilation rate was observed under the variety Kufri
Arun and was followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (0.0040
g/cm2/day).The lowest value of NAR was recorded in Kufri Chipsona-
4(0.0007 g/cm2/day).
At 60 DAP, the highest NAR was found in Kufri Arun (0.0754
g/cm2/day) as compared to all other varieties. The lowest value of NAR was
observed in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (0.0054 g/cm2/day).
At 75 DAP, the highest NAR was found in Kufri Arun (0.0088
g/cm2/day) followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (0.0078 g/cm2/day)
and Kufri Jyoti (0.0069 g/cm2/day) as compared to all other varieties. The lowest
value of NAR was observed in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (0.0019 g/cm2/day).
4.2.3 Crop growth rate (g/plant/day)
The crop growth rate of different varieties are given in Table 4.11,
graphically presented in Figure 13 and illustrated in Appendix-XXXVIII to XL.
It is obvious from the Table 4.12 that there was significant difference
amongst the varieties at all the stages of observations. In general CGR increased
with increase in crop growth stages. At 45 DAP, the maximum crop growth rate
was observed under the variety Kufri Arun (0.1372 g/plant/day) and followed by
and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (0.1288 g/plant/day), Kufri Jyoti (0.1162
g/plant/day), Kufri lauvkar (0.0884 g/plant/day), Kufri Jawahar (0.0722
g/plant/day) and Kufri Surya (0.0692 g/plant/day) as compared to Chipsona
variet ies. However, the lowest value of CGR was observed in Kufri
Chipsona- 4 (0.0298 g/plant/day).
At 60 DAP, the significantly highest CGR were observed in the variety
Kufri Arun (1.2400 g/plant/day) followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi
(1.1269 g/plant/day) and Kufri Jyoti (1.1082 g/plant/day) as compared to
other varieties. However, the lowest value of CGR was found in Kufri
Chipsona- 4 (0.1144 g/plant/day)
47
Table 4.11 Crop growth rate (g/plant/day) of potato varieties at different
plant growth stages
S. No. Varieties CGR (g/plant/day)
30-45 DAP 45-60 DAP 60-75 DAP
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 0.0752 0.6310 0.0628
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 0.0358 0.2889 0.0416
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 0.0304 0.2312 0.0509
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 0.0298 0.1144 0.0318
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 0.1288 1.1269 0.1300
6. Kufri Arun 0.1372 1.2400 0.1324
7. Kufri Lauvkar 0.0884 0.7412 0.0987
8. Kufri Surya 0.0692 0.5912 0.0836
9. Kufri Jawahar 0.0722 0.6270 0.0915
10. Kufri Jyoti 0.1162 1.1082 0.1128
SEm± 0.0023 0.0641 0.006
C.D. at 5% level 0.070 0.190 0.018
At 75 DAP, the significantly highest CGR was observed in the variety
Kufri Arun 0.1324 g/plant/day followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi
(0.1300 g/plant/day) as compared to all other varieties. However, the lowest
value of CGR was found in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (0.0318 g/plant/day).
4.3 Yield parameter
4.3.1 Days to haulm cutting
The average days to haulm cutting of different varieties is given in Table
4.12. Its graphical presentation has been shown in Fig.14 and the analysis of
variance is given in Appendix –XLI.
The days to haulm cutting increased signif icantly in the dif ferent
variet ies. The signif icantly early 60 days for haulm cutting was
recorded in the variety Kufri Chandramukhi followed by Kufri Lauvkar (65
48
days) and Kufri Arun (75 days) as compared to other varieties. However, the
variety Kufri Chipsona- 2 and Kufri Jyoti exhibited the maximum 105
days for haulm cutting.
4.3.2 Days to maturity
Days to maturity of different potato varieties is given in Table 4.12. Its
graphical presentation has been shown in Fig. 14 and illustrated in Appendix –
XLII.
The minimum days for maturity (75.0 days) were observed for Kufri
Chandramukhi followed by Kufri Lauvkar (80 days) and Kufri Arun (90 days) as
compared to other varieties. However, the varieties Kufri Chipsona- 2 and Kufri
Jyoti required maximum 120 days for maturity.
Table 4.12 Days to haulm cutting and days to maturity of different potato
varieties
S. No. Varieties Days to haulm cutting
Days to maturity
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 85.00 100.00
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 105.00 120.00 3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 85.00 100.00 4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 95.00 110.00 5. Kufri Chandramukhi 60.00 75.00 6. Kufri Arun 75.00 90.00 7. Kufri Lauvkar 65.00 80.00 8. Kufri Surya 85.00 100.00
9. Kufri Jawahar 85.00 100.00
10. Kufri Jyoti 105.00 120.00
SEm± 1.066 2.00
C.D. at 5% level 3.16 5.96
4.3.3 Number of tubers per plant
The number of tubers per plant was recorded variety wise and their values
were subjected to statistical analysis (Appendix – XLIII). The data have been
depicted in Table 4.13 and diagrammatically exhibited in Fig. 15.
49
During harvesting, significantly maximum number of tubers per plant was
recorded in the variety Kufri Arun (12.67) followed by Kufri Chandamukhi (12.60),
Kufri Jyoti (12.40) and Kufri Lauvkar (11.86) and were at par with each other.
While, the minimum number of tubers per plant was observed in Kufri Chipsona-
4 (8.69).
Table 4.13 Number of tubers per plant of different varieties of potato.
S. No. Varieties Number of tubers per plant
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 10.33
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 9.86
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 10.13
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 8.69
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 12.60
6. Kufri Arun 12.67
7. Kufri Lauvkar 11.86
8. Kufri Surya 9.88
9. Kufri Jawahar 9.87
10. Kufri Jyoti 12.40
S Em ±
0.41
C.D. at 5% level 1.22
4.3.4 Number of rotted tubers per plant
The number of rotted tubers per plant of different varieties is given in
Table 4.14. Its graphical presentation has been shown in Fig. 16 and depicted in
Appendix-XLIV.
Significantly minimum number of rotted tubers per plant were recorded in
the varieties Kufri Arun(1.0) followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi
(1.23), Kufri Jyoti (1.29), Kufri Lauvkar (1.58), Kufri Chipsona-1 (1.60) and Kufri
Jawahar (1.63), as compared to all other varieties. Therefore, number of rotted
tubers per plant was observed to be maximum in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4(2.56).
50
4.3.5 Weight of rotted tubers (g/plot)
The weight of rotted tubers per plant of different varieties is given in Table
4.14, graphically presented in Fig. 16 and depicted in Appendix-XLV.
Variety Kufri Arun (41.09 g) noted significantly minimum weight of rotted
tubers followed by and was at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (45.10), as compared
to all other varieties. While weight of rotted tubers per plant was found maximum
in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (105.59 g per plant).
Table 4.14 Number and weight of rotted tubers of different varieties of
potato
S. No. Varieties Number of rotted
tubers/plant
Weight of rotted
tubers (g/plot)
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 1.60 58.00
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 2.00 86.68
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 2.25 95.72
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 2.56 105.59
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 1.23 45.10
6. Kufri Arun 1.08 41.09
7. Kufri Lauvkar 1.58 54.38
8. Kufri Surya 1.87 79.81
9. Kufri Jawahar 1.63 61.14
10. Kufri Jyoti 1.29 49.10
SEm± 0.25 2.63
C.D. at 5% level 0.76 7.84
4.3.6 Total yield of tubers (kg/plot)
The total yield of tubers per plot was recorded variety wise and their
values are depicted in Table 4.15, diagrammatically exhibited in Fig. 17 and
depicted in Appendix XLVI.
Variety Kufri Arun was recorded significantly superior and gave maximum
(26.33 kg) total yield of tubers per plot followed by Kufri Chandramukhi (25.92
51
kg), Kufri Jyoti (25.62kg), Kufri Lauvkar (25.14kg) and Kufri Chipsona-1(24.81kg)
which were at par with each other. While, the lowest total yield of tubers per plot
was noted in variety Kufri Chipsona- 4 (20.11 kg).
4.3.7 Total yield of tubers (q/plot)
The yield of any crop is the final index of the experiment which indicates
the success or failure of any treatment. With this view the tuber yield of potato
was recorded. The data for the total yield of tubers per plot under different
varieties were recorded and converted into total yield of tubers hectare-1
(quintals).
The data was analyzed statistically and depicted in Appendix-XLVII. The
total yield of tubers hectare-1 as affected by different varieties is presented in
Table 4.15 and Figure 17.
Table 4.15 Total yield of tubers (kg/plot) and (q/plot) of different varieties of
potato
S. No. Varieties Total yield of tubers
(kg/plot)
Total yield of tubers
(q/plot)
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 24.81 275.66
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 22.28 247.55
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 24.11 267.88
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 20.11 223.44
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 25.92 288
6. Kufri Arun 26.33 292.55
7. Kufri Lauvkar 25.14 279.33
8. Kufri Surya 23.79 264.33
9. Kufri Jawahar 22.81 253.45
10. Kufri Jyoti 25.62 284.66
SEm± 0.51 5.68
C.D. at 5% level 1.52 16.90
52
Variety Kufri Arun was recorded significantly superior and gave maximum
(292.55 q) total yield of tubers hectare-1 and which was at par with Kufri
Chandramukhi (288 q), Kufri Jyoti (284.66q), Kufri Lauvkar (279.33 q) and Kufri
Chipsona-1 (275.66q) as compared to all other varieties . While, the lowest total
yield hectare-1 was noted in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (223.44 q).
4.3.8 Marketable yield of tubers (kg/plot and q/ha)
The data was analyzed statistically and is depicted in Appendix-XLVIII and
XLIX. The marketable tuber yield per plot and per hectare as affected by different
treatment is presented in Table 4.16 and Fig. 18.
Table 4.16 Marketable yield of tubers (kg/plot) and q/ha of different varieties
of potato
S. No. Varieties Marketable yield of
tubers (kg/plot)
Marketable yield of
tubers (q/ha)
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 21.83 242.55
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 17.72 196.88
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 20.12 223.55
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 16.92 188
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 24.00 266.66
6. Kufri Arun 24.78 275.33
7. Kufri Lauvkar 22.97 255.22
8. Kufri Surya 19.53 217
9. Kufri Jawahar 18.22 202.44
10. Kufri Jyoti 23.53 261.44
SEm± 0.38 4.24
C.D. at 5% level 1.13 12.62
Significantly maximum 24.78, kg per plot and 2735.33, q/ha marketable
tuber yield were recorded under the varieties Kufri Arun followed by and was at
par with Kufri Chandramukhi (24.00 kg per plot, 266.66 q/ha) as compared to all
53
other varieties. However, the lowest marketable tuber yield was observed in Kufri
Chipsona- 4 (916.92 kg per plot and 188 q per ha)
4.3.9 Harvest index
The data was analyzed statistically and is depicted in Appendix-L. The
harvest index as affected by different treatment is presented in Table 4.17 and
Fig. 19.
Significantly maximum Harvest index (0.76) was recorded under the
variety Kufri Arun followed by and at par with Kufri Chandramukhi (0.74), Kufri
Jyoti (0.72), Kufri Lauvkar(0.70), Kufri Chipsona-1(0.69)and Kufri Surya (0.67)as
compared to all other varieties . However, the lowest Harvest index was
observed in Kufri Chipsona- 4 (0.58).
Table 4.17 Harvest index of tubers of different varieties of potato
S. No. Varieties Harvest index
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 0.69
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 0.63
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 0.67
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 0.58
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 0.74
6. Kufri Arun 0.76
7. Kufri Lauvkar 0.70
8. Kufri Surya 0.67
9. Kufri Jawahar 0.66
10. Kufri Jyoti 0.72
SEm± 0.029
C.D. at 5% level 0.87
54
4.4 Quality parameter
4.4.1 Starch content
The Starch content per cent of different varieties is given in Table 4.18
graphically presented in Fig. 20 and depicted in Appendix- LI.
The significantly, the maximum starch content (18.72 %) was observed in
the variety Kufri Arun followed by and at par with Kufri Chipsona-2 (18.60%),
Kufri Chipsona- 1 (18.55 %) and Kufri Chandramukhi (18.09%) as compared to
other varieties. Whereas, the lowest starch content was noted in Kufri Lauvkar
(14.18 %).
Table 4.18 Starch content (%) of different varieties of potato
S. No. Varieties Starch content %
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 18.55
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 18.60
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 15.28
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 15.30
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 18.09
6. Kufri Arun 18.72
7. Kufri Lauvkar 14.18
8. Kufri Surya 15.32
9. Kufri Jawahar 14.29
10. Kufri Jyoti 14.27
SEm± 0.208
C.D. at 5% level 0.619
4.4.2 Potato flour
The quality characters of potato products like potato flour and chips of
different varieties are given in Table 4.19.
Variation was observed in colour of potato flour. Varieties Kufri Chipsona-
1, Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-3, Kufri Chipsona-4 and Kufri Surya
55
exhibited light golden color flour whereas in the remaining varieties golden color
flour was observed
Table 4.19 Potato flour and quality of chips of different varieties of potato
S. No. Varieties Potato flour Quality of chips
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 Light golden colour Good
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 Light golden colour Good 3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 Light golden colour Good 4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 Light golden colour Good 5. Kufri Chandramukhi Golden colour Good 6. Kufri Arun Golden colour Good 7. Kufri Lauvkar Golden colour Fair 8. Kufri Surya Light golden colour Fair
9. Kufri Jawahar Golden colour Fair
10. Kufri Jyoti Golden colour Fair
4.4.3 Quality of chips
Quality of chips was determined on its taste and colour. Generally good
taste and light coloured chips are preferable. Results revealed that the chips
produced from Kufri Chipsona-1, Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-3, Kufri
Chipsona-4, Kufri Chandramukhi and Kufri Arun were found superior in term of
taste, texture and color as compared to Kufri Lauvkar, Kufri Surya, Kufri Jawahar
and Kufri Jyoti.
4.5 Incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence
The succession and incidence of whitefly and leafhopper did not vary
significantly among the treatments i.e. negligible incidence of insect-pest and
disease has occurred. Minimum Whitefly per leaf (0.98) and Jassids per leaf
(1.00) were recorded in variety Kufri Arun and Kufri Chandramukhi.
56
Table 4.20 Incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence among
different varieties
S. No. Varieties Whitefly/leaf Jassids/leaf
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 2.00 2.48
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 1.88 2.32
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 1.28 3.42
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 2.02 3.12
5. Kufri Chandramukhi 1.02 1.03
6. Kufri Arun 0.98 1.00
7. Kufri Lauvkar 1.07 1.12
8. Kufri Surya 1.38 2.88
9. Kufri Jawahar 1.32 3.04
10. Kufri Jyoti 1.05 1.08
4.6 Economics
Higher money value and less cost of cultivation are desirable traits for
getting higher returns. Hence economics of the treatments was worked out. The
data pertaining to economics of different treatments are depicted in Table 4.20
and cost of cultivation incurred in various treatments is presented in Appendix-
LII.
57
Table 4.20: Economics of different varieties of potato
S.No. Varieties
Tuber
yield
(q ha)
Gross
income
(Rs ha)*
Cost of
cultivati
on (Rs
ha)
Net
income
(Rs ha)
B:C
ratio
1. Kufri Chipsona-1 242.55 242550 82840 159710 1:2.92
2. Kufri Chipsona- 2 196.88 196880 82840 114040 1:2.37
3. Kufri Chipsona- 3 223.55 223550 82840 140710 1:2.69
4. Kufri Chipsona- 4 188 188000 82840 105160 1:2.26
5. Kufri
Chandramukhi 266.66 266660 82840 183820 1:3.21
6. Kufri Arun 275.33 275330 82840 192490 1:3.32
7. Kufri Lauvkar 255.22 255220 82840 172380 1:3.08
8. Kufri Surya 217 217000 82840 134160 1:2.62
9. Kufri Jawahar 202.44 202440 82840 119600 1:2.44
10. Kufri Jyoti 261.44 261440 82840 178600 1:3.15
*Sale rate of produce was Rs 1000 q-1
It is revealed from the data obtained that a significantly maximum
marketable tuber yield of 275.33 per ha was obtained in potato variety Kufri Arun
with net return of Rs 192490 per ha and cost benefit ratio 1: 3.32 followed by
Kufri Chandramukhi that recorded 266.66 q per ha tuber yield along with net
return of Rs 183820 per ha and cost benefit ratio 1: 3.21. Whereas, the lowest
tuber yield 223.44 q per ha was recorded in Kufri Chipsona- 4 with net return of
Rs 105160 per ha and cost benefit ratio 1: 2.92.
58
Chapter-V
DISCUSSION
The production or yield is an ultimate result of the plants which depends
on the genetic constitution of the plant and environmental factors which consists
of different weather components and soil characteristics. Varieties play an
important role in increasing the productivity of crops. Improvement in crop
varieties and suitability according to climatic conditions for high yield is essential
to increase the productivity of crop at sufficient level.
Keeping this in view, the present investigation was carried out to evaluate
the comparative performance of different varieties. Various observations were
recorded periodically on morphological parameters, yield and qualities. The
inferences obtained from these observations were critically described in the
previous chapter. Some of the findings have been focused on the most valuable
information of basic and applied importance. These findings are being discussed
in this chapter with the support of the data, scientific facts and views of other
researchers. The discussion is centered around the effect of potato cultivars on
the various characters.
5.1 Morphological characters
The significant varietal differences of potato were noticed with respect to
days required for 50 % germination, number of sprouts per plant, plant height,
diameter of the stem, number of leaves per plant, leaf length, leaf width, leaf area
per plant as well as dry weight of the plant at most of the plant growth intervals
viz., 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP and at maturity stages. Amongst the varieties, Kufri
Arun resulted in higher values of all these characters, followed by and at par with
Kufri Chandramukhi, Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Lauvkar at almost all the crop growth
stage.
59
The differential behavior of potato varieties with respect to morphological
characters could be explained solely by the variation in their genetic makeup and
adaptability to soil and climatic conditions i.e. (G×E) interaction. Similar findings
were reported by Kumar et al. in (2011), who reported that the G x E interaction,
environment (linear) and environment (non-linear) were significant for all the
traits and the predictable component was predominant, indicating the prediction
of performance of genotypes for these traits. The results are also in close
conformity with the findings of Nandekar (1995) who reported that the plant
height and number of branches significantly varies with the varieties. Kumar et al.
in (2008) observed that potato varieties Kufri sadabahar recorded maximum plant
height, compound leaves and stem number / plant as compared to other
varieties. Zheng et al. (2012) and Patel et al. (2013) also reported the significant
differences in the morphological traits that were positively correlated with the
genotypes.
5.7 Growth analysis parameters
Growth analysis technique has made substantial contribution to the
current understanding of the physiological basis of yield variation in different
crops.
Efforts to relate crop yields to canopy architecture began in the early 20th
century with the development of “growth analysis” by British plant physiologists.
They recorded total plant dry weight (W) and leaf area (L) in the growing season.
In fact leaf is the factory for the conversion of solar energy into the
chemical energy for the growth and development of plants. Leaf area or
photosynthetic area fairly gives a good idea of the photosynthetic capacity of the
plant. The LAI, NAR and CGR are the important growth parameters influencing
yield which are dependent not only on the genotype but also on the
environmental and different horticultural practices.
In the present study, the leaf area index (LAI), net assimilation rate (NAR)
and crop growth rate (CGR) increased up to 60 DAP and decreased thereafter
due to senescence and aging of leaves as well as complicated physiological
60
functions in the plant. The varieties in general showed a profound effect over
these growth analysis parameters and significant differences were noticed
among the varieties at almost all the growth stages. Amongst the varieties, Kufri
Arun recorded almost significantly higher growth analysis parameters at most of
the stages of observations.
The varietal differences amongst these growth analysis parameters
attributed to the variability in the genetic inheritance among the varieties. This
has been supported by Patel et al. (2000). The average daily increment of stand
biomass is an important characteristic and is called either the rate of dry matter
production or crop growth rate i.e. CGR (Watson, 1952). It is a widely used
character for estimating production efficiency of the crop stand and enables to
make comparisons between the aspects of study. Net assimilation rate (NAR),
synonymously called as “unit leaf rate”, expresses the rate of dry weight increase
at any instant on a leaf area basis with leaf representing an estimate of the size
of the assimilatory surface area.
The maximum NAR values were recorded in Kufri Arun variety. Watson
(1952) suggested that NAR does not measure real photosynthesis product but
represents net result of photosynthetic gain over respiratory loss and it gives no
direct indications of respiratory losses. Further the NAR was maximum at early
stages and decreased with advancement in crop growth and development. Since
leaf area is taken into account while computing NAR, the leaf area steadily
increased with crop growth and at later stages a mutual shading of leaves in the
canopy occurs leading to lower NAR values.
Leaf area fairly gives a good idea of the photosynthetic capacity of the
plant. In the present study, the leaf area and leaf area index (LAI) increased up to
75 DAP and decreased thereafter due to senescence and ageing of leaves. In
general, the varieties showed a profound effect over these parameters and
significant differences were noticed among the varieties at all the growth stages.
However, Kufri Arun recorded significantly higher leaf area and LAI as compared
61
to other cultivars at all the growth stages. These results are confirmed with the
findings of Ahmed et al. (2013).
5.8 Yield attributing characters
The factors which are directly responsible for ultimate tuber production
viz., days to haulm cutting, days for maturity, number of tubers per plant,
number of rotted tubers per plant, weight of rotted tubers per plant, total yield of
tubers plot -1, total yield of tubers hectare-1, marketable tuber yield per plot,
marketable tuber yield per hectare and harvest index were augmented almost
significantly due to Kufri Arun variety over the other nine potato varieties.
The days to haulm cutting varies significantly with the varieties. The
significantly early 60 days for haulm cutting was recorded in the variety Kufri
Chandramukhi followed by Kufri Lauvkar (65 days) and Kufri Arun (75 days) as
compared to other varieties. However, the variety Kufri Chipsona- 2 and Kufri
Jyoti exhibited maximum 105 days for haulm cutting. The practice of haulm
cutting is adopted as precautionary measures to avoid chances of viral disease
transmission through the vectors like aphids. Haulms should be removed close to
the ground level and regrowth of stumps checked. These finding are in
agreement with the findings reported by Suhag et al. (2006).
The minimum days for maturity (75.0 days) were observed for Kufri
Chandramukhi followed by Kufri Lauvkar (80 days) and Kufri Arun (90 days) as
compared to other varieties. However, the varieties Kufri Chipsona- 2 and Kufri
Jyoti required maximum 75 days for maturity, respectively. Variation in days to
maturity was due to the inherent genetic makeup of the variety. These finding are
in agreement with the findings reported by Bhutani et al. (2003) and Suhag et al.
(2006).
The maximum number of tubers (12.67), minimum number of rotted tubers
(1.0), minimum weight of rotted tubers (41.09 g), maximum total yield of tubers
plot-1 (26.33 kg plot-1), maximum total yield of tubers hectare-1(292.55 q),
maximum marketable tuber yield (24.78 kg plot-1, 275.33q/ha ), maximum
62
harvest index (0.76) was recorded in the variety Kufri Arun. The higher yield
attributes in Kufri Arun may be owing to maximum increase in growth parameters
as well as growth analysis parameters. The present findings on varietal
differences are in consequence with those of other research workers (Cremaschi
et al.(1991), Kushwah et al. (1994), Roy et al. (1999), Kumar et al. (2001),
Mehari et al. (2002), Alam et al.(2003), Bhutani et al. (2003), Rahemi et al.
(2005), Tajner et al. (2005), Kaushik et al. (2006), Haase et al.(2007 ), Kang et
al. (2007), Singh et al. (2008), Basavaraja et al. (2008), Ullah and Saikia (2008),
Mohd Mehdi et al. (2008), Rashid et al. (2008), Richardson (2009), Ummyiah et
al. (2010), Egbe et al. (2012) and Wariboko et al. (2014).
5.10 Qualitative parameters
Among quality parameters, the starch content per cent, potato flour and
chips were studies in potato.
Amongst the potato varieties, Kufri Arun recorded significantly higher,
percentage of starch 18.72% followed by Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona- 1
and Kufri Chandramukhi as compared to other varieties.
The lowest starch contents 14.18% were obtained from Kufri Lauvkar
variety. The significant variations in starch contents in different varieties of potato
might be owing to differences in their genetic inheritence which is ultimately also
responsible to such qualitative variations. These findings are in close
approximate with Jaiswal et al. (2008), Muller et al. (2009), Ghulam Abbas et al.
(2011), Kaur and Aggarwal (2014).
Variation was observed in colour of potato flour. Varieties Kufri Chipsona-
1, Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-3, Kufri Chipsona-4 and Kufri Surya
exhibited light golden colour flour and in the remaining varieties golden colour
flour was observed. This may be due to inherent genetic makeup of the variety.
These finding are observed in agreement with the findings reported by
Singh et al. (2005a).
63
Quality of chips was determined on the basis of its taste and colour.
Generally good taste and light coloured chips are preferable. Results revealed
that the chips produced from Kufri Chipsona-1, Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-
3, Kufri Chipsona-4, Kufri Chandramukhi and Kufri Arun were found superior to
Kufri Jawahar, Kufri Lauvkar, Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Surya. This may be due to the
different physical and chemical characteristics among the genotypes. These
finding are in agreement with the findings reported by Zorzella et al. (2003),
Similar findings were reported by Kumar et al. (2004), Singh et al. (2005),
Suhag et al. (2006), Kumar et al. (2007), Kumar et al. (2007a), Shashi and Singh
(2007), Bhardwaj et al. (2008), Jaiswal et al. (2008), Muller et al. (2009), Rivera et
al. (2011) , Ooko and Kabira (2011), Abbas Hafiz et al. (2012), Gautam et al.
(2012) and Patel et al. (2013).
5.11 Incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence
The incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence was found negligible
in the experimental plot i.e the incidence of white fly and jassids occurrence in
the potato field were below the ETL level. This is basically because no
solanaceous crops were grown in the surrounding area of the experimental plot.
The other reason may include climatic conditions which were favorable for potato
crop making them healthy and tolerable to the insect-pest.
5.12 Economical gain
The maximum net income per hectare after deduction of cost of cultivation
is the ultimate goal of any farm owner or grain producer. Amongst the potato
varieties, Kufri Arun brought about the maximum net income (Rs.1,92,490/ha)
with B:C ratio 1:3.32 This was equally followed by Kufri Chandramukhi and then
Kufri Jyoti. The lowest net income (Rs. 1,05,160/ha and B:C ratio 1:2.26) were
obtained from Kufri Chipsona- 4 variety. The net economical gain was secured in
accordance with the per hectare yield of the varieties and thereby gross income.
Similar findings were reported by Hosea et al. (2012).
64
Chapter-VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND SUGESTIONS FOR FURTHUR WORK
The present investigation entitled “Study on growth, development and
suitability of some improved Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Varieties for
processing.” was carried out during the year 2014-2015 at the Research
Farm of Department of Horticulture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa
Vidyalaya, College of Agriculture Indore, (M.P.). The experimental material for
the present investigation was comprised of ten varieties of potato. These
varieties were sown in Randomized Complete Block Design with three
replications, to observed morphological, growth analytical, yield and quality
parameters. Observations were recorded on the basis of five random
competitive plants selected from each genotype separately for
morphological, growth analytical, yield and quality parameters were
evaluated as per standard procedure and also estimate the economics of
different varieties.
The present investigation is summarized in this chapter.
The significant varietal differences of potato were noticed with respect to days
required for 50 % germination, number of sprouts per plant, plant height,
diameter of the stem number of leaves per plant, leaf length, leaf width, leaf
area as well as dry weight of the plant at most of the plant growth intervals
viz., 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP and at maturity stages. Amongst the varieties,
Kufri Arun resulted in higher values of all these characters, followed by and at
par with Kufri Chandramukhi, Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Lauvkar at almost all the
crop growth stage.
In the present study, thereby leaf area index (LAI), net assimilation rate (NAR)
and crop growth rate (CGR) increased up to 60 DAP and thereafter
decreased. The varieties in general showed a profound effect over these
65
growth analysis parameters and significant differences were noticed among
the varieties at almost all the growth stages. Amongst the varieties, Kufri Arun
recorded almost significantly higher growth analysis parameters at most of
the stages of observations. However, Chipsona-4 was recorded lowest values
of all these parameters.
The days to haulm cutting increased significantly by the different varieties.
The significantly early 60 days for haulm cutting was recorded in the variety
Kufri Chandramukhi followed by Kufri Lauvkar (65 days) and Kufri Arun (75
days) as compared to other varieties. However, the variety Kufri Chipsona- 2
and Kufri Jyoti were exhibited maximum 105 days for haulm cutting.
The minimum days for maturity (75.0 days) were observed for Kufri
Chandramukhi followed by Kufri Lauvkar (80 days) and Kufri Arun (90 days)
as compared to other varieties. However, the varieties Kufri Chipsona- 2 and
Kufri Jyoti were required maximum 75 days for maturity, respectively.
Variation in days to maturity was due to the inherent genetic makeup of the
variety.
The maximum number of tubers (12.67), minimum number of rotted tubers
(1.0), minimum weight of rotted tubers (41.09 g), maximum total yield of
tubers plot-1 (26.33 kg plot-1), maximum total yield of tubers hectare-
1(292.55 q), maximum marketable tuber yield (24.78 kg plot-1, 275.33q/ha ),
maximum harvest index (0.76) were recorded in the varieties Kufri Arun. The
variety Kufri Chandramukhi was noted as the second best in respect to yield
attributing as well as yields. The minimum values of these parameters were
recorded with Chipsona-4.
The incidence of insect-pest and disease occurrence was found negligible in
the experimental plot i.e the incidence of white fly and jassids occurrence in
the potato field were below the ETL level.
Amongst the potato varieties, Kufri Arun recorded significantly higher,
percentage of starch 18.72% followed by Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-
1 and Kufri Chandramukhi as compared to other varieties. The lowest starch
contents 14.18% were obtained from Kufri Lauvkar variety.
66
Variation was observed in colour of potato flour. Varieties Kufri Chipsona-1,
Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-3, Kufri Chipsona-4 and Kufri Surya
exhibited light golden colour flour and remaining varieties was observed
golden colour flour.
Quality of chips was determined on its taste and colour. Generally good taste
and light coloured chips are preferable. Results revealed that the chips
produced from Kufri Chipsona-1, Kufri Chipsona-2, Kufri Chipsona-3, Kufri
Chipsona-4, Kufri Chandramukhi and were superior than Kufri Jawahar, Kufri
Lauvkar, Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Surya.
Amongst the potato varieties, Kufri Arun obtained the maximum net income
(Rs.1,92,490/ha) with B:C ratio 1:3.32 which was followed by Kufri
Chandramukhi and Kufri Jyoti. The lowest net income (Rs. 1,05,160/ha and
B:C ratio 1:2.26) were obtained from Kufri Chipsona- 4 variety. The net
economical gain was secured in accordance with the per hectare yield of the
varieties and there by gross income.
Conclusion
Among the different varieties of potato Kufri Arun recorded the
maximum growth, yield attributing, quality as well as yield over other
varieties. The Kufri Chandramukhi and Kufri Jyoti were also performed
almost equally as Kufri Arun. The variety Kufri Arun obtained the maximum
net income (Rs.1,92,490/ha) with B:C ratio 1:3.32 which was followed by
Kufri Chandramukhi and Kufri Jyoti. The lowest net income (Rs. 1,05,160/ha
and B:C ratio 1:2.26) were obtained from Kufri Chipsona- 4 variety. Thus, it
can be concluded that Kufri Arun, Kufri Chandramukhi as well as Kufri Jyoti
are the most suitable varieties of potato under Malwa agro-climatic
conditions.
Suggestions for future works
1. The findings of the present experiments should be tested in different
locations to identify the suitability of varieties in different areas.
67
2. The identified suitable varieties for processing should be tested separately
to refine the processing findings of present experiment.
3. The results of present experiment on quality parameters should be tested
with including more quality parameters.
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmad, A.; Pal, M; Khetarpal, S. and Pandey, S. K. (2013). Impact of elevated atmospheric CO2
concentration on growth and yield of potato cultivars. World Applied Sciences Journal. 24 (4):
429-435.
Alam, M.K.,; Zaman, M.M.; Nazrul, M.I.; Alam, M.S. and Hossain, M.M.(2003) Performance of Some Exotic
Potato Varieties under Bangladesh Condition. Asian Journal of Plant Science. 2 (1): 108-112.
Anonymous (2011): Horticulture status report, Directorate of Horticulture, Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal
(M.P.)
Basavaraja, N.; Naik, K. S.; Naik, K. R. and Karadi, R. (2008). Evaluation of processing potato genotypes for
warmer regions of India. In: Global Potato Conference, 9-12 December. New Delhi 25p.
Bhardwaj,V.; Pandey, S.K.; Manivel, P.; Singh, S.V. and Dinesh kumar (2008). Stability of indigenous and
exotic potato processing cultivars in Himachal Pradesh hills. In: Global Potato Conference, 9-12
December. New Delhi 22p.
Bhutani, R.D.; Sanwal, S K. and Khurana, S. C. (2003). Variation in the quality of potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) tubers with crop maturity. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 32 (1/2):
110-113.
Blackman, G.E. and Black, J.N. (1968). Physiological and ecological studies in analysis of plant
environment. Ann. Bot. 23 (89): 51-63.
Cremaschi, D.; Matranga, G.; Vender, C.; Finelli, D.; Salmi, A.; Regoli, J. and Govoni, F. (1991). Potato:
synthesis of 15 years of varietal trials in the plain of Bologna. [Italian] Sementi Elette. 37 (3-4):
3-14.
Egbe O. M.; Afuape S. O. and Idoko, J. A. (2012).Performance of Improved Sweet Potato (Ipomea batatas
L.) Varieties in Makurdi, Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. American Journal of
Experimental Agriculture 2(4): 573-586.
Gautam, I.P.; Khatri, B.B.; Sharma, M.D.; Thapa, R.B.; Shrestha,K. and Chaudhary,D. (2012). Evaluation of
potato genotypes for keeping quality under ambient conditions in Nepal. Potato Journal. 39 (2):
128-132.
Ghulam, A.; Hafiz, I.A.; Abbasi, N.A. and Hussain, A. (2012). Determination of processing and nutritional
quality atributes of potato genotypes in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 44 (1): 201-208.
ii
Ghulam A.; Khalid Frooq; Hafiz, I A.; Azhar Hussain; Abbasi, N.A. and Ghulam Shabbir (2011). Assessment
of processing and nutritional quality of potato genotypes in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of
Agricultural Sciences. 48 (3): 169-175.
Hamad, A. H.; Mohamed, El Ameen and Emad El Deen, M. Ali (2004). Economics of garlic production in the
Northern State. Gezira Journal of Agricultural Science. ISSN 9556-1728 Vol 7 No 2.
Hosea, M. and Reuben M. J. Kadigi (2012) Round potato (Solanum tuberosum) profitability and
implications for variety selections in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Journal of
Development and Agricultural Economics Vol. 4 (9), pp. 258-267,
Haase, T.; Schuler, C. ; Haase, N. U. and He, J. (2007). Suitability of Organic Potatoes for Industrial
Processing: Effect of Agronomical Measures on Selected Quality Parameters at Harvest and
after Storage. Journals Potato Research. 50 (2):115-141.
Jackson, M. L. (1967). Soil chemical analysis, Pub. Prentice Hall India, New Delhi, pp. 87-93.
Jaiswal, R.K.; Nandekar, D.N. and Rajni Nikum (2008). Performance of processing cultivars of potato in
Satpura zone of Madhya Pradesh. In: Global Potato Conference. New Delhi 23p.
Jatav, M.K.; Kumar,M. ; Trehan, S.P.; Dua, V.K. and Kumar, S. (2013). Effect of Nitrogen and Varieties of Potatoes on Yield and Argronomic use efficiency in North- Western Plains of India. Potato J 40 (1): 55-59
Kang, G. S.; Kumar R.; Gopal, J.; Pandey, S. K. and Khurana, S. M. P. (2007). Kufri Pushkar - a main crop
potato variety with good keeping quality for Indian plains. Potato Journal. 34 (3/4): 147-152.
Kaur, S. and Aggarwal, P. (2014) Studies on Indian Potato Genotypes for their Processing and Nutritional
Quality Attributes. International journal of current microbiology and applied science ISSN:
2319-7706 Volume 3 Number 8 pp. 172-177 .
Kaushik, S. K.; Bhardwaj V.; Joseph, T. A.; Gupta, V. K.; Singh, P. H.; Khurana, S. M. P.; Singh, B. P.;
Singh, S. V.; Pandey, S. K.; Brajesh Singh and Sharma, Y. K. (2006). Stability of potato
genotypes for yield, late blight resistance and their storage behaviour. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences. 76 (1): 26-28.
Kumar, D.; Singh, V.; Singh, B. P. and R. P. Singh (2008). Growth and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.) Plants grown from in Vitro plantlets in net-house. In: Global Potato Conference, 9-12
December. New Delhi 61p.
Kumar, D.; Singh, S.V.; Pandey, S.K.; Singh, B.P. and Sanjay, Rawal (2007). Effect of growing season on
chipping quality of potatoes under sub-tropical climates. Potato J. 34 (3-4): 180-186.
iii
Kumar, P.; Pandey, S.K.; Singh, B.P.; Rawal, S.; Singh, S.V. and Dinesh Kumar (2004). Fertilizer
requirements of chipping potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars in West Bengal plains. Potato
J. 31 (3-4): 177-181.
Kumar, S. (2009). Performance study of indigenous potato hybrids K-22 and G-4 in eastern plains. Haryana
Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 38 (1/2): 154-155.
Kumar, S. (2011). Stability analysis in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for yield and quality traits. Annals of
Biology. 27 (2): 147-151.
Kushwah, M.L.; Singh, N.P. and Singh B.R. (1994). Studies on growth, tuberization and quality of potato
cultures. Journal of the Indian Potato Association. 20(3/4):210-215
Mehdi, Md.; Saleem, T.; Rai, H.K.; Mir, M.S. and Gyanendra, Rai. (2008). Effect of nitrogen and FYM
interactrion on yield and yield traits of potato (Solanum tuberosum L) genotypes under Ladakh
condition. Potato J. 35 (3-4): 126-129.
Muller, D. R.; Bisognin, D. A.; Andriolo, J. L.; Morin Junior, G. R. and Gnocato, F. S. (2009). Trait expression
and selection of potato clones in the spring and autumn growth conditions. Ciencia Rural. 39
(5): 1327-1334.
Nandekar, D. N.; Sharma, R. C. and Sharma, T. R. (1995). Yield potential of potato hybribs in Madhya
Pradesh. Journal of the Indian Potato Association. 22 (1-2): 13-16.
Ooko, G.A. and Kabira, J.N. (2011). Suitability of three newly released Kenyan potato varieties for
processing into crisps and french fries African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and
Development, Vol. 11, No. 6.
Pandey, S.K.; Marwaha, R.S.; Kymar D.and S.V. Singh,2009. Indian potato processing story: Industrial
limitation,challenges ahead and vision for the future. Potato J., 36: 1-13.
Panse, V. C. and P. V. Sukhatme (1985). Statistical methods for agricultural workers. ICAR Publications,
New Delhi. pp 155.
Patel, A. K.; Patel, N. H.; Gami, R. A.; Patel, C. R. and Chauhan, R. M. (2013). Assessment of potato
(Solanum tuberosum L) hybrids-varieties for table purpose among yield and quality traits.
Trends in Biosciences. 6 (5): 669-673.
Patel, J. C.; Patel, L. R.; Amin, A. U. and Patel, J. K. (2000). Effect of irrigation and nitrogen levels on
growth and yield of potato. Journal of the Indian Potato Association. 27 (1/2): 51-53.
Piper, C S. (1967). Soil and plant analysis. Uni.of Adelaide, Australia. Hans Publishers, Bombay.
iv
Qasim, M.; Khalid, S.; Naz, A.; Khan, M. Z. and Khan, S. A. (2013). Effect of different planting system on
yield of potato crop in Kaghan Valley: A mountainous region of Pakistan. Agricultural Science.
Vol. 4, No. 4, 175-179.
Rahemi, A.; Hasanpour, A.; Mansoori, B.; Zakerin, A. and T.S. Taghavi. (2005). The effect of Intra Row
Spacing and N fertilizer on the yield of two Foreign Potato Cultivars in Iran. International
Journal of Agriculture & Biology 1560-8530/07- 5 705-707.
Rashid M.H.; Hossain M.M.; Hossain M.; Mahmud A.A.; Akhtar M.I.; Kadian, M.S.; Chujoy E.; Bonierbale M.
and Ilangantileke S. Saikat: A new potato variety for coastal areas of Bangladesh. Potato J. 35
(1 - 2): 9-11, 2008.
Richardson, K.V.A. (2009) Tuber quality and yield of four sweet potato varieties evaluated during 2007 crop
research report no. 1
Rivera, J. E.; Herrera, A. O. and Rodriguez, L. E. (2011). Assessment of the processing profile of six "creole
potato" genotypes (Solanum tuberosum Phureja Group). Agronomia Colombiana. 29 (1): 73-81.
Roy, S.K.B.; Chakraborty, A.K.; Kumar, D. and Gaur, P.C. (1999). Evaluation of potato varieties for
processing in West Bengal. Potato, global research and development. Proceedings of the
Global Conference on Potato, New Delhi, India, 6-11 December 1999: Volume 2,2002. 1160-
1162.
Shashi K. and Singh, N. P. (2007). Assessment of potato genotypes for quality traits under tarai conditions
of Uttarakhand. Pantnagar Journal of Research. 5 (1): 99-103.
Shivanandam, V. N. and Shankaranarayana, V. (2002). Morphological and tuber quality attributes in tubers
obtained from TPS genotypes in southern dry zone of Karnataka. Mysore Journal of Agricultural
Sciences. 36 (1): 8-11.
Singh, N.; Kaur, S. P.; Kaur, L. and Sodhi, N. S. (2005a). Physicochemical, rheological and chapatti making
properties of flour from some Indian potato cultivars. Journal of Food Science and Technology
(Mysore). 42 (4): 344-348.
Singh, S. V.; Pandey, S. K.; Patel, D. K.; N. H.; Khurana, S. M. P.; Kumar, P. and Manivel, P. (2005). Scope
and suitability of potato (Solanum tuberosum) genotypes for industrial processing for French
fries in Gujarat and western Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 75 (12):
781-785.
Singh, V.; Kumar, D.; Singh, R.P.; Singh, B.P. and Singh, S. (2007). Performance of microtubers of various
potato cultivars in net house. Potato J. 34 (1-2): 133-134.
v
Suhag, M.; Nehra, B. K.; Singh, N. and Khurana, S.C. (2006). Storage behavior of potato under ambient
condition affected by curing and crop duration. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 35
(3&4): 357-360.
Tajner C. A.; Pytlarz Kozicka, M.; Lisinska, G. and Jarych, M. (2005). Effects of nitrogen fertilization on
potato yield and quality. Sodininkyste ir Darzininkyste. 24 (4): 231-243.
Ullah, Z. and M. Saikia. (2008). Yield performance of processing potato varieties in the plains of Assam.
Global Potato Conference, 9-12 Des, 2008, New Delhi, pp.- 22.
Ummyiah, H. M.; Khan, S. H.; Wani, K. P.; Hussain, K. and Junaif, N. (2010). Genetic variability in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Asian Journal of Horticulture. 5 (1): 61-63.
Vijaylakshman, M.; Indiresh, K.M. and Siddagangaiah (2008). Performance of processing potato hybrids in
southern transitional zone of Karnataka. In: Global Potato Conference. New Delhi 24p.
Walkley, A. J. and Black, J. A. (1934). Estimation of organic carbon by chromic acid titration method. Soil
Science, 37: 29-38.
Wariboko C. and Ogidi I. A. (2014) Evaluation of the performance of improved sweet potato (Ipomoea
batatas L. LAM) varieties in Bayelsa State, Nigeria African journal of Environmental Science
and Technology Vol.8(1),pp. 48-53
Watson, D. J. (1952). The physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv. Agron., 4: 101-146.
Yang, W.M.; Chung, S.J. and Yang, S.Y. (1989). Abstracts of Communications Papers. Korean Soc. Hort.
Sci. 7: 54-55.
Zheng Xu, Deng; YingYi; Kazuoto, I. and Yutaka, J. (2012). Genotype differences of spatial distribution
between potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) root and leaf and their effects on potato yield. China
Vegetables. (6): 48-52.
Zorzella, C. A.; Vendruscolo, J. L. and Treptow, R. O. (2003). Sensory quality of potato chips (Solanum
tuberosum L.) from different genotypes in southern Brazil spring and autumn harvests. Revista
Brasileira de Agrociencia. 9 (1): 57-63.
APPENDICES
Appendix- I: Days to 50% germination
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.266 0.133 0.227 3.55
Treatment 9 39.148 4.349 7.426* 2.45
Error 18 10.542 0.585
Total 29 49.957
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- II: Number of sprouts per plant
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.443 0.221 2.606 3.55
Treatment 9 4.393 0.488 5.735* 2.45
Error 18 1.532 0.085
Total 29 6.369
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- III: Plant height at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.827 0.413 0.240 3.554
Treatment 9 42.035 4.670 2.710* 2.456
Error 18 31.016 1.723
Total 29 73.879
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- IV: Plant height at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 6.453 3.2265 0.7888 3.55
Treatment 9 592.907 65.878 16.1058* 2.45
Error 18 73.626 4.0903
Total 29 672.987
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- V: Plant height at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 1.018 0.509 0.209 3.55
Treatment 9 1686.260 187.362 76.933* 2.45
Error 18 43.836 2.435
Total 29 1731.120
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- VI: Plant height at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 22.009 11.004 0.632 3.55
Treatment 9 1306.730 145.193 8.342* 2.45
Error 18 313.259 17.403
Total 29 1642
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- VII: Diameter of stem (cm) at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.039 0.019 0.551 3.555
Treatment 9 0.818 0.091 2.571* 2.456
Error 18 0.636 0.035
Total 29 1.494
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- VIII: Diameter of stem (cm) at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.018 0.009 0.920 3.555
Treatment 9 0.286 0.032 3.203* 2.456
Error 18 0.178 0.010
Total 29 0.482
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- IX: Diameter of stem (cm) at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.232 0.116 2.330 3.555
Treatment 9 2.044 0.227 4.567* 2.456
Error 18 0.895 0.050
Total 29 3.171
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- X: Diameter of stem (cm) at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.042 0.021 2.257 3.555
Treatment 9 2.341 0.260 28.264* 2.456
Error 18 0.166 0.009
Total 29 2.548
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XI: Number of leaves per plant at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.772 0.386 3.242 3.55
Treatment 9 32.415 3.601 30.238* 2.45
Error 18 2.143 0.119
Total 29 35.331
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XII: Number of leaves per plant at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 2.562 1.281 0.916 3.55
Treatment 9 71.542
7.949 5.683* 2.45
Error 18 25.173 1.398
Total 29 99.278
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XIII: Number of leaves per plant at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 10.984 5.492 2.689 3.55
Treatment 9 65.132 7.236 3.544* 2.45
Error 18 36.754 2.041
Total 29 112.871
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XIV: Number of leaves per plant at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 3.445 1.722 1.414 3.55
Treatment 9 53.779 5.975 4.907* 2.45
Error 18 21.919 1.217
Total 29 79.143
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XV Leaf length (cm) at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.356 0.178 2.043 3.555
Treatment 9 3.672 0.408 4.681* 2.456
Error 18 1.569 0.087
Total 29 5.597
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XVI: Leaf length (cm) at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.028 0.014 0.300 3.555
Treatment 9 2.687 0.299 6.362* 2.456
Error 18 0.845 0.047
Total 29 3.560
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XVII: Leaf length (cm) at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.128 0.064 1.531 3.555
Treatment 9 1.576 0.175 4.195* 2.456
Error 18 0.752 0.042
Total 29 2.456
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XVIII: Leaf length (cm) at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.425 0.212 3.868 3.555
Treatment 9 2.106 0.234 4.262* 2.456
Error 18 0.989 0.055
Total 29 3.520
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XIX: Leaf width (cm) at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.047 0.023 1.719 3.555
Treatment 9 0.480 0.053 3.916* 2.456
Error 18 0.245 0.014
Total 29 0.772
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XX Leaf width (cm) at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.530 0.265 2.517 3.555
Treatment 9 3.237 0.360 3.419* 2.456
Error 18 1.894 0.105
Total 29 5.661
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXI: Leaf width (cm) at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.118 0.059 0.677 3.555
Treatment 9 3.116 0.346 3.983* 2.456
Error 18 1.565 0.087
Total 29 4.798
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXII: Leaf width (cm) at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.192 0.096 0.605 3.555
Treatment 9 3.725 0.414 2.610* 2.456
Error 18 2.854 0.159
Total 29 6.772
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXIII: Leaf area per plant (cm 2) at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 102.583 51.291 1.032 3.555
Treatment 9 17242.815 1915.868 38.547* 2.456
Error 18 894.637 49.702
Total 29 18240.035
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXIV: Leaf area per plant (cm 2) at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 1717.93 858.96 1.06 3.55
Treatment 9 64405.15 7156.13 8.81* 2.46
Error 18 14619.60 812.20
Total 29 80742.68
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXV: Leaf area per plant (cm 2) at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 163.071 81.535 0.156 3.55
Treatment 9 81325.622 9036.180 17.318* 2.45
Error 18 9392.001 521.778
Total 29 90880.694
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXVI: Leaf area per plant (cm 2) at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 5094.266 2547.133 7.213 3.555
Treatment 9 46568.605 5174.289 14.653* 2.456
Error 18 6356.305 353.128
Total 29 58019.176
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXVII: Dry weight per plant at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 7.03084667 3.5154233 1.0752865 3.554557
Treatment 9 191.15595 21.23955 6.4966858* 2.456281
Error 18 58.84722 3.26929
Total 29 257.034017
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXVIII: Dry weight per plant at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.01736 0.00868 2.139102 3.554557
Treatment 9 271.0255 30.11395 7421.29* 2.456281
Error 18 0.07304 0.004058
Total 29 271.1159
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXIX: Dry weight per plant at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.024047 0.012023 0.383302 3.554557
Treatment 9 2198.887 244.3208 7788.911* 2.456281
Error 18 0.56462 0.031368
Total 29 2199.476
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXX: Dry weight per plant at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.00182 0.00091 0.272183 3.554557
Treatment 9 2431.97 270.219 80823.43* 2.456281
Error 18 0.06018 0.00334
Total 29 2432.03903
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXI: Leaf area index at 30 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.0001 0.0001 0.3998 3.5546
Treatment 9 0.0128 0.0014 7.8970* 2.4563
Error 18 0.0032 0.0002
Total 29 0.0162
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXII: Leaf area index at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.0001 0.0001 0.3998 3.5546
Treatment 9 0.0128 0.0014 7.8970* 2.4563
Error 18 0.0032 0.0002
Total 29 0.0162
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXIII: Leaf area index at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.002 0.001 1.317 3.555
Treatment 9 0.050 0.006 6.700* 2.456
Error 18 0.015 0.001
Total 29 0.068
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXIV: Leaf area index at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.0027 0.0013 1.4160 3.5546
Treatment 9 0.0463 0.0051 5.4058* 2.4563
Error 18 0.0171 0.0010
Total 29 0.0661
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXV: Net assimilation rate (g/cm2 /day) at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 8.06E-07 4.03E-07 2.04E+00 3.55E+00
Treatment 9 5.19E-05 5.77E-06 2.92E+01* 2.46E+00
Error 18 3.55E-06 1.97E-07
Total 29 5.63E-05
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXVI: Net assimilation rate (g/cm2 /day) at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 5.38E-05 2.69E-05 4.59E+00 3.55E+00
Treatment 9 1.14E-02 1.27E-03 2.16E+02* 2.46E+00
Error 18 1.05E-04 5.86E-06
Total 29 1.16E-02
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXVII: Net assimilation rate (g/cm2 /day) at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 7.58E-07 3.79E-07 0.293773 3.554557
Treatment 9 0.000107 1.19E-05 9.238481* 2.456281
Error 18 2.32E-05 1.29E-06
Total 29 0.000131
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXVIII: Crop growth rate (g/plant/day) at 45 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 4.28E-05 2.14E-05 1.27E+00 3.55E+00
Treatment 9 4.24E-02 4.71E-03 2.80E+02* 2.46E+00
Error 18 3.03E-04 1.68E-05
Total 29 4.28E-02
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XXXIX: Crop growth rate (g/plant/day) at 60 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.049 0.025 2.002 3.555
Treatment 9 4.160 0.462 37.437* 2.456
Error 18 0.222 0.012
Total 29 4.432
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XL: Crop growth rate (g/plant/day) at 75 DAP
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.0005 0.0003 2.1439 3.5546
Treatment 9 0.0349 0.0039 32.0436* 2.4563
Error 18 0.0022 0.0001
Total 29 0.0376
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLI: Days to haulm cutting
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 38.6 19.3 5.65798 3.554557
Treatment 9 6067.5 674.1667 197.6384* 2.456281
Error 18 61.4 3.411111
Total 29 6167.5
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLII: Days to maturity
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 10.4 5.2 0.4 3.6
Treatment 9 6082.8 675.9 55.9* 2.5
Error 18 217.6 12.1
Total 29 6310.8
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLIII: Number of tubers per plant
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 2.060 1.030 2.027 3.555
Treatment 9 54.387 6.043 11.894* 2.456
Error 18 9.145 0.508
Total 29 65.591
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLIV: Number of rotted tubers per plant
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.391 0.196 0.984 3.555
Treatment 9 5.889 0.654 3.294* 2.456
Error 18 3.575 0.199
Total 29 9.855
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLV: Weight of rotted tubers per plant (g)
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 1.871 0.936 0.045 3.555
Treatment 9 13821.024 1535.669 73.501* 2.456
Error 18 376.078 20.893
Total 29 14198.973
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLVI: Total yield of tubers per plot (kg)
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.030 0.015 0.019 3.555
Treatment 9 99.521 11.058 14.053* 2.456
Error 18 14.163 0.787
Total 29 113.714
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLVII: Total yield of tubers per ha (q)
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 3.683 1.841 0.019 3.555
Treatment 9 12285.877 1365.097 14.057* 2.456
Error 18 1748.018 97.112
Total 29 14037.577
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLVIII: Marketable yield of tubers per plot (kg)
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 1.430 0.715 1.625 3.555
Treatment 9 216.939 24.104 54.805* 2.456
Error 18 7.917 0.440
Total 29 226.286
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- XLIX: Marketable yield of tubers per ha (q)
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 3.683 1.841 0.019 3.555
Treatment 9 12285.877 1365.097 14.057* 2.456
Error 18 1748.018 97.112
Total 29 14037.577
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- L: Harvest index
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.001 0.001 0.198 3.555
Treatment 9 0.075 0.008 3.201* 2.456
Error 18 0.047 0.003
Total 29 0.124
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- LI: Starch content (%)
S.V. d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F cal. F tab.
Replication 2 0.090 0.045 0.347 3.555
Treatment 9 109.440 12.160 93.354* 2.456
Error 18 2.345 0.130
Total 29 111.875
* Significant at 5 % level
Appendix- LII: Economics
Cost of Cultivation of Potato/ha
S. No. Particulars Unit Qty. Rate / unit (Rs.)
Cost (Rs. /ha.)
A. Land preparation
1. Ploughing with M. B. Plough @
0.4 ha hr-1
Hrs. 3 675 2025
2. Disc harrow Hrs. 5 528 2640
3. Planking and leveling Hrs. 1 500 500
4. Layout of the field Labour 10 150 1500
B. Sowing and planting
1. Cost of seed and seed treatment Q 20q 1800 36000
2. Labour for planting and fertilizer
application
Labour 25 150 3750
C. Cost of manure and fertilizers
1. 20t FYM 4trally 850 3400
2. Urea 261kg @Rs.6/kg 1566
3. SSP 500kg @Rs.7.5/kg 3750
4. MOP 134kg @Rs.17/kg 2278
D. After care
1. Gap filing Labour 4 150 600
2. Two weeding and earthing up Labour 60 150 9000
E. Irrigation
1. Tube well charges for irrigation 5 500 2500
2. Labour for irrigation Labour 5 150 750
F. Plant protection measure 2831
G. Dehaulming Labour 5 150 750
Harvesting, transporting and
marketing
Labour 50 150 9000
Total (Rs.) 82840