DS
Uploaded byDalbeer Singh
PDF, PPTX11,197 views

Seed Potato Production

This document discusses agronomic strategies for enhancing seed potato production. It begins by providing background on potato as a crop, including its origins and importance. It then covers taxonomy and morphology of potato, as well as current area, production and productivity statistics globally and for India. The rest of the document discusses best practices for seed potato production, including the system of seed certification and standards, importance of disease-free seed, and effect of various agronomic practices like seed treatment, spacing, fertilizer and irrigation management, on seed potato quality and yield. Tables provide data on the effect of mechanical and chemical seed treatments, plant growth regulators, biofertilizers, and nitrogen levels on seed potato germination, growth and yield.

Embed presentation

Download as PDF, PPTX
Agronomic strategies for enhancing seed potato production Harmanjeet Singh L-2013-A-02-M
Introduction • Major non-cereal food crop, ranks 4th in production in the world after wheat, maize and rice. • Originated in Andean region i.e. Southern Peru and Bolivia where it is domesticated 7000- 10000 year ago. • Europeans introduced potato in India during late 16th century or early 17th century • The Great Famine, due to blight in the 1845 which resulted in 1 million Irish people dying and another 1 million migrating.
•Family Solanaceae •Important cultivated species Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena •2n= 48, tetraploid •Cross pollinated •About 60 cm high culm •Green cherry fruits (300 seed in each) •Potato stolons: lateral stems grow horizontally •Potato tubers: modified stem, initiation of young tubers at the tip of stolons at 35-40 DAP, process called tuberization. •Minute scale leaves with buds (eyes) Stolon Tuber Taxonomy & Morphology Fruit Flower
Area, Production & Productivity World Total Production = 368.1 m t China = 88.9 m t India = 44.31 m t Russia = 30.2 m t India Area = 2.02 m ha Production = 44.31 m t Productivity = 219.6 q/ha Punjab Area = 85250 ha Production = 2.13 m t Productivity = 249.8 q/ha Source: FAO, 2013-14 www.indiastat.com 1/3 of total produced by China and India. Major potato producing states: U.P., W.B., Bihar, Punjab, Haryana
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1949-50 1959-60 1969-70 1979-80 1989-90 1999-00 2003-04 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Area (Lakh ha) Production (mt) Yield (t/ha) Increase in area, production and productivity of Potato in India (1949/50 – 2012-13) www.indiastat.com
Current Scenario India is producing 45.34 m tons (2012-13) from 1.99 m ha at an average productivity of 21.9 t/ha. 2.96 m tons (8.5%) of the produce is used as seed. 2.8 m tons (7.5%) of the produce is processed. 0.1 m tons are exported Post harvest losses are nearly 16% of the total produce. www.indiastat.com
Potato Research in India Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla (CPRI) established in 1949 It has 7 research centres • CPRIC, Modipuram, Meerut (UP) • CPRS, Jalandhar (Punjab) • CPRS, Gwalior (MP) • CPRS, Patna (Bihar) • CPRS, Kufri-Fagu, Shimla (HP) • CPRS, Udagamandalam (Tamilnadu) • CPRS, Shillong (Meghlaya) All India Coordinated Reseaech Project Potato (AICRP),1970 has headquarter at CPRI, Shimla has a nationwide network of 25 centers (7 CPRI based centers, 17 SAU based centers and 1 Voluntary center)
Sexual True potato Seed (TPS) Asexual Micro-propagation Meristem culture Seed potato Tuber indexing
Microtubers: 50-60% survival Field multiplication-1 Field multiplication-2 Basic or Breeder Seed Microplants Microtubers Minitubers Culturing in liquid media Microtuber in vitro Micro Propagation
VIRUSES Potato Virus X Potato Virus S Potato Virus M Potato Virus Y Potato Leaf Roll Virus Potato Virus A Tuber Indexing by ELISA
Clonal field multiplication 100 x 100 cm, 100% tested, individual harvest STAGE - I STAGE - II Separate clones in rows in field 100 x 20 cm; rogue; 100% tested in composite sample; bulk harvest Breeder seed Stage III and IV, 60X20 cm, rogue, bulk harvested
SYSTEM OF SEED PRODUCTION Tuber selection and indexing (Nucleus seed) Nucleus seed
True Potato Seed (TPS) True Potato Seed (TPS) can be used in 3 ways:- 1. Direct seeding of TPS in the field 2. Transplanting TPS derived seedlings 3. Planting seedling tubers raised from TPS Problems: 1. Low germination %age 2. Heavy weed problems 3. Slow growth of plants 4. Dormancy period of 4-6 months 5. Isolation: 50m
SEED POTATO Potato tuber of definite size are used for further multiplication Should be free from all viral diseases Should not have been grown in areas where wart, cyst nematode and other quarantine diseases are endemic Should be either free from soil and tuber borne diseases or carry them within permissible limits Should be of proper physiological age
Advantages • Seed has a high % germination • Crop has a better rate of establishment • Seed has a higher yield • Seed is true to type • Fewer pests and diseases • Easier to market the crop • Quite expensive •Isolation required •Non availability •Transportation •Lack of awareness •Requirement non-infested field from pathogens Disadvantages Certified seed
General Seed Certification Standards for Seed Potato I. Classification : 1. Hill Seed (HS): 2500 m ASL 2. Plains seed (PS): where low aphid infestation during the crop growing season II. Land Requirements : not infested with wart , cyst forming nematodes, brown rot within the previous 3 years or common scab. III. Field Inspection: Minimum 4 inspections : First inspection: In the hills- 45 DAP In Plains- 35 DAP Second inspection: 60-70 DAP Third inspection: Immediately after haulms cutting/destruction Fourth inspection:10 days after haulms cutting/destruction IV. Isolation: 5 m for FS and CS
Seed Standards for seed potato Size Mean length and two widths at the middle of tuber Corresponding weight Hill seed (HS) Seed size 30mm-60mm 25-150gm Large size above 60mm above 150gm Plains seed (HS) Small size 30 mm- 55 mm 25-125gm Large size above 55 mm above 125 gm 1. Size based on mean length or weight 2. Permissible limit for non seed size tuber <5.0% (by number) 3. Cut, cracked tubers < 1.0% (by weight.) 4. Greenish pigmentation allowed
Shift from hills to plains Before 1970 Seed production shifted from the hills to the northern plains to cater to the large demand of seed.  Hill seed may not of right physiological age for use in the plains  Hill soils may carries soil borne pathogens due to continuous potato production, which often not found in the plains  Long distance transport  Area in hills is insufficient for seed production
APHID POPULATION BUILDUP IN SUB-TROPICS
COMPONENTS OF SEED PLOT TECHNIQUE  Systemic granular insecticide at planting/earthing  Removal of off types & diseased plants  1-2 sprays of systemic insecticide + Metalaxyl-Mancozeb in Dec- Jan  Crop rotation 2-3 yrs  Tuber treatment- boric acid Source: Seed potato production manual CPRI,Shimla
IMPACT OF SEED PLOT TECHNIQUE  CPRI produce =2550 t Breeder seed/year  CPRI give =2000 t to NSC or SSCs  Saving US $ in million annually on seed import  India is the only Asian country with a well established, scientific seed production programme. 2000 t Breeder Seed 12000 t Foundation seed (Stage- I) 72000 t Foundation seed (Stage- II) 432000 t or 0.43 mt Certified seed (Stage- I) Seed requirement of country = 1.99 m ha X 3.0 t/ha = 5.97 m t Solution: Farmer can own seed with suitable agronomic strategies, free from virus and diseases Multiplication rate 6 times
Different Agronomic practices involved in production of quality seed potato 1. Seed treatment (Growth regulator, Microbial) 2. Seed rate 3. Seed size 4. Spacing 5. Method of planting 6. Inter-culture (Earthing up etc.) 7. Irrigation 8. Fertilizer management 9. Weed management 10.Haulm cutting
Treatment Germination %age No. of sprouts/ plant Plant Height Control Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised Thiourea @ 0.25% Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised Thiourea @ 0.50% Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised GA3 @ 2 ppm Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised GA3 @ 5 ppm Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised CD (p=0.05) 88.8 91.7 93.1 92.4 95.5 98.0 94.2 96.6 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.47 2.9 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 5.1 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.6 5.2 6.1 4.0 4.8 5.6 0.55 26.0 26.4 26.1 28.2 30.5 30.1 29.4 30.7 30.2 30.4 32.0 32.9 31.6 34.6 35.9 1.82 Table 1: Effect of mechanical and chemical treatment on germination, no. of sprouts/ plant and plant height Mohan (1993), PAU, Ludhiana M.Sc. Thesis Pp: 36
Table 2: Effect of foliar spray of PGRs on growth characters, graded tuber number and yield of potato (pooled data of two years) Treatment Grade wise no. of tubers (lakh/ha) Grade wise tubers yield (q/ha) Total tuber yield (q/ha) <25g 25-75g >75g <25g 25-75g >75g GA3 @200 ppm 1.14 2.72 1.98 1.60 13.7 21.7 37.0 NAA @50 ppm 1.02 2.64 1.60 1.52 13.8 19.3 34.6 MC @150 ppm 0.76 1.86 2.15 1.14 8.6 23.9 33.6 TIBA 50 ppm 0.82 2.06 2.00 1.33 9.8 23.0 34.1 Ethrel @250 ppm 1.08 2.30 2.11 1.72 11.0 22.3 35.0 2.4-D @1 ppm 0.78 1.78 2.14 1.05 8.2 21.9 31.2 Control 0.86 1.70 1.96 1.15 8.6 20.6 30.4 CD(p=0.05) 0.13 0.31 0.10 0.14 1.82 1.93 2.76 Birbal et al (2009), Gwalior, M.P. Indian J Agril Sci 79(9): 684-6 Two Sprays at 25 & 50 DAP
Table 3: Effect of biofertilizers and nirogen levels on growth parameters, yield and nutrient uptake Treatment Plant height (cm) Stems/ m2 Tubers /m2 Tuber yield (tonnes/ ha) Total nutrients (kg/ha) N P K Microbial treatment Control 36.7 31.3 52.8 195.5 73.2 6.53 75.6 Azotobacter 42.5 32.1 55.8 208.2 82.7 7.48 84.1 Phospho-inoculant culture 45.8 33.7 56.5 208.9 81.9 8.96 83.2 Azotobacter + Phospho- inoculant culture 47.3 34.2 59.8 225.3 89.6 9.78 91.7 CD(p=0.05) 7.2 NS NS 21.6 9.2 1.4 8.9 Nitrogen (kg/ha) 0 32.3 28.7 50.3 153.7 53.8 4.87 55.3 50 39.5 32.3 54.5 215.5 76.2 7.12 75.9 100 44.7 33.8 58.3 228.4 84.7 8.47 86.9 150 49.2 35.2 61.5 236.2 90.5 9.21 88.7 CD(p=0.05) 8.7 NS 6.8 25.3 8.7 2.3 10.5 Singh (2001), Meghalaya Indian J Agron 46: 375-79Interaction= NS
Table 4: Effect of biofertilizers and nitrogen levels on graded tuber yields, yield and net returns Treatment Graded tuber yield (tonnes/ha) Tuber yield (tonnes/ha) Net Returns (Rs/ha) >100 g 20-100g <20 g Microbial treatment Control 2.4 9.9 2.8 15.1 19948 Azotobacter 3.2 10.0 3.2 16.4 24548 Phospho-inoculant culture 3.1 10.5 2.9 16.5 25048 Azotobacter + Phospho- inoculant culture 3.5 11.1 3.1 17.7 29748 CD(p=0.05) 0.7 NS NS 1.3 - Nitrogen (kg/ha) 0 1.6 7.9 2.8 12.3 8825 50 3.3 10.3 3.0 16.6 25690 100 3.5 11.4 3.2 18.1 30755 150 3.7 12.2 3.0 18.9 34020 CD(p=0.05) 0.4 0.6 NS 0.7 - Singh (2001), Meghalaya Indian J Agron 46: 375-79Interaction= NS
Treatment Plant height (cm) No. of stems/hill Leaf area (cm2) Dry matter/plant (g) 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP <20 g 36.9 49.6 1.58 2.54 31.4 45.9 10.4 48.1 21-30 g 37.4 51.2 1.89 2.87 33.4 47.4 11.8 52.1 31-40 g 37.9 54.6 2.67 3.69 35.3 48.7 13.4 58.3 41-50 g 39.1 55.3 3.07 4.10 36.7 51.1 15.4 61.8 51-60 g 39.8 56.6 3.81 4.42 38.1 52.8 16.7 66.1 CD (p=0.05) 1.53 1.95 0.16 0.17 0.91 1.46 1.62 1.49 Table 5: Effect of seed tuber size on growth parameters Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka) Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50
Treatment Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Total tuber yield/ha (t) Grade <20 g Grade 21-50 g Grade >50g Seed tuber size <20 g 33.6 (13.8*) 122.0 (50.2) 87.4 (35.9) 12.8 21-30 g 30.3 (9.73) 157.0 (50.4) 124.1 (39.8) 16.5 31-40 g 23.7 (7.02) 182.0 (53.9) 132.0 (39.0) 17.6 41-50 g 19.2 (5.69) 171.0 (50.7) 146.9 (43.6) 17.8 51-60 g 14.5 (4.34) 118.0 (35.5) 200.5 (60.2) 17.9 CD (p=0.05) 0.83 3.76 8.05 0.70 Haulm killing date 60 DAP 25.1 (10.1) 136.0 (54.5) 88.0 (35.5) 13.2 70 DAP 26.7 (9.22) 143.0 (49.5) 120.0 (41.3) 15.3 80 DAP 23.6 (6.94) 159.0 (46.8) 157.0 (46.2) 17.9 90 DAP 21.7 (5.84) 163.0 (43.7) 188.0 (50.5) 19.7 CD (p=0.05) 0.75 3.36 7.20 0.63 Table 6: Effect of seed tuber size and date of haulm cutting on yield parameters * Figures in bracket indicates the per cent distribution of grade wise tuber yield per plant on weight basis Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka) Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50
Treatment Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Total tuber yield/ha (t) Grade <20 g Grade 21-50 g Grade >50g S1 X 60 DAP S1 X 70 DAP S1 X 80 DAP S1 X 90 DAP S2 X 60 DAP S2 X 70 DAP S2 X 80 DAP S2 X 90 DAP S3 X 60 DAP S3 X 70 DAP S3 X 80 DAP S3 X 90 DAP S4 X 60 DAP S4 X 70 DAP S4 X 80 DAP S4 X 90 DAP S5 X 60 DAP S4 X 70 DAP S4 X 80 DAP S4 X 90 DAP CD (p=0.05) 34.04* 37.04 31.83 31.67 30.42 33.16 31.03 26.47 24.58 24.72 23.04 22.56 19.84 21.81 18.68 11.47 16.47 16.67 13.22 16.58 1.68 106.27 118.21 126.47 137.94 139.59 153.94 167.85 168.18 146.02 167.79 201.74 214.23 145.41 152.08 190.96 97.49 140.97 126.34 107.91 196.04 7.51 61.16 84.04 97.13 107.21 87.82 115.46 140.11 153.19 94.28 117.10 146.72 169.93 94.61 121.31 168.29 306.21 103.72 160.02 231.97 203.53 16.10 10.60 12.68 13.42 14.72 13.64 15.85 17.97 18.55 13.93 16.46 19.65 21.74 13.73 15.64 19.92 21.69 13.98 16.11 18.57 22.06 1.40 Table 7: Interaction effect of seed tuber size and date of haulm cutting on yield * thousand tuber/ha Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka) Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50<20 g = S1 21-30 g = S2 31-40 g = S3 41-50 = S4 51-60 g = S5
Table 8: Effect of seed size and spacing on growth parameters and yield Treatment Seed Rate (q/ha) No. of Sprouts / plant Plant height (cm) Tuber yield Total tuber yieldLarge >50mm Medium 25-50 mm Small <25mm 25-45g + 10 cm 33.3 2.6 29.6 34.0 168.8 14.8 217.7 25-45g + 12.5 cm 26.6 3.0 31.5 48.8 142.2 18.6 209.9 25-45g + 15 cm 22.2 3.2 31.6 42.9 122.9 18.6 184.4 45-75g + 15 cm 50.0 5.0 32.1 94.2 186.6 32.5 313.3 45-75g + 17.5 cm 42.8 5.5 32.4 80.0 182.2 31.1 293.3 45-75g + 20 cm 37.5 5.6 33.4 75.5 174.8 28.1 278.4 >75g + 20 cm 62.5 5.6 33.3 89.3 203.0 24.8 317.0 >75g + 25 cm 50.0 5.7 33.8 84.4 173.3 35.5 271.1 >75g + 30 cm 41.6 5.8 35.9 81.4 155.5 34.0 248.8 LSD = 0.05 0.32 1.73 3.30 26.41 1.31 30.22 Mohan (1993), PAU (Ludhiana) M.Sc. Thesis Pp: 46
Table 9: Effect of spacing, and date of haulm cutting on growth and yield Treatment Stems /plant Tuber no. (‘000/ha) Tuber yield (q/ha) <10 g 10-40 g >40 g Total <10 g 10-40 g >40 g Total Spacing (cm x cm) 50 X 10 4.57 449 573 61 1083 40 177 48 265 50 X 15 5.03 351 460 79 890 31 151 66 248 CD(p=0.05) 0.45 67 48 11 88 5 14 10 NS Dehaulming 60 DAP 5.18 311 511 44 866 23 141 31 194 70 DAP 4.90 432 511 75 1017 40 166 62 268 80 DAP 4.32 457 528 91 1076 43 186 77 305 CD(p=0.05) 0.55 83 NS 13 108 6 17 12 25 Kumar et al (2001), Modipuram Indian J Agric Sci 71: 658-60
Table 10: Effect of seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Jalandhar (pooled data of 3 years) Treatment Total yield (t/ha) Seed size Cost of Cultivation ( x 103 Rs./ha) Net returns (x 103 Rs./ha) B:C ratio No.( x 103/ha) Yield (t/ha) Row Spacing(cm) 60 X15 30.11 408.6 14.55 60.4 103.7 2.72 60 X10 31.22 564.6 16.81 78.2 97.1 2.24 CD(p=0.05) 0.76 17.4 0.68 - - - Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha) 150+35+66 30.34 467.6 15.41 68.8 98.8 2.44 150+52+66 30.99 505.7 15.96 69.9 102.0 2.46 CD(p=0.05) NS 17.4 NS - - - Haulm Cutting (DAP) 70 28.69 484.7 15.22 69.3 91.1 2.31 80 32.64 488.5 16.15 69.3 110.0 2.58 CD(p=0.05) 0.76 NS 0.68 - - - Dua et al (2008), Jalandhar Indian J Agron 53: 201-26
Table 11: Effect of seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Faizabad (pooled data of 3 years) Treatment Total yield (t/ha) Seed size Cost of Cultivation (x 103 Rs./ha) Net returns (x 103 Rs./ha) B:C ratio No.( x 103/ha) Yield (t/ha) Row Spacing(cm) 60 X15 27.53 450.5 14.71 57.9 96.4 2.67 60 X10 28.49 494.8 15.87 75.7 85.9 2.14 CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.9 0.65 - - - Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha) 100+35+66 26.11 435.4 14.06 65.0 81.6 2.26 150+52+66 29.90 509.9 16.53 68.5 100.7 2.47 CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.1 0.61 - - - Haulm Cutting (DAP) 70 25.67 439.3 14.06 66.8 78.1 2.17 80 30.35 505.9 16.53 66.8 104.2 2.56 CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.3 0.63 - - - Dua et al (2008), Faizabad Indian J Agron 53: 201-26
Table 12: Effect of seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Modipuram (pooled data of 3 years) Treatment Total yield (t/ha) Seed size Cost of Cultivation ( x103 Rs./ha) Net returns (x103 Rs./ha) B:C ratio No.( x103/ha) Yield (t/ha) Row Spacing(cm) 60 X15 23.32 486.5 13.44 57.9 75.7 2.31 60 X10 25.80 597.0 16.45 75.7 76.9 2.02 CD(p=0.05) 1.30 47.74 1.46 - - - Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha) 100+35+66 23.71 563.5 15.98 65.0 77.8 2.20 150+52+66 25.40 520.1 13.92 68.5 74.8 2.09 CD(p=0.05) 1.32 NS 1.46 - - - Haulm Cutting (DAP) 70 22.91 552.8 15.12 66.8 70.2 2.05 80 26.21 530.8 14.77 66.8 82.4 2.23 CD(p=0.05) 1.29 NS NS - - - Dua et al (2008), Modipuram Indian J Agron 53: 201-26
Table 13: Effect of foliar spray of PGRs on growth characters and graded tuber number and yield of potato Treatment Grade wise tuber tubers (t/ha) Total tuber yield (t/ha)>55mm 45-54mm 35-44mm <35mm K level K0 1.3 1.7 4.4 2.9 10.4 K60 7.9 3.8 4.7 2.4 18.9 K90 9.4 3.9 4.8 2.3 20.5 K120 10.1 4.4 4.9 2.2 21.7 CD (p=0.05) 1.8 0.7 NS NS 1.5 Nitrogen level N120 6.0 3.2 4.2 2.5 16.8 N180 8.3 3.6 4.9 2.4 19.0 CD (p=0.05) 1.5 0.3 0.2 NS 1.7 Foliar KNO3 (%) 0.0 6.6 3.2 4.7 2.3 16.9 1.0 7.8 3.7 4.7 2.6 18.9 CD(p= 0.05) 1.0 0.3 NS 0.2 1.3 Brar and Kaur (2006), Ludhiana Indian J Agril Sci 76:740-43
Table 14: Effect of different levels of applied N and K through soil and foliar application on graded and total tuber yield Treatment Grade wise tuber yield Total tuber yield (t/ha) >55mm 45-54mm 35-44mm <35mm N120K0 0.8 1.4 4.4 3.0 9.7 N120K0 F 1.3 1.5 5.0 3.2 10.1 N180K0 1.4 1.6 4.3 2.5 9.8 N180K0 F 1.7 2.3 4.1 3.2 11.3 N120K60 5.4 2.8 4.6 2.4 15.3 N120K60 F 6.1 4.3 4.8 2.6 17.9 N180K60 9.7 3.5 4.4 2.3 20.1 N180K60F 10.4 4.7 5.0 2.4 22.7 N120K90 7.7 3.5 5.1 2.1 18.5 N120K90 F 9.5 3.9 4.6 2.4 20.4 N180K90 8.6 4.3 5.2 2.4 20.5 N180K90 F 11.9 3.9 3.5 2.4 22.9 N120K120 8.1 4.4 5.7 2.3 20.4 N120K120 F 9.3 4.5 5.6 2.4 21.8 N180K120 10.9 4.1 4.1 2.0 21.2 N180K120 F 12.1 4.6 4.5 2.4 23.6 CD=0.05 3.1 1.0 NS NS 3.7 Brar and Kaur (2006), Ludhiana Indian J Agril Sci 76:740-43
Table 15: Effect of combination of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on growth, graded and total tuber yield and net returns Treatment (NPK + manure t/ha) Plant height (cm) Grade wise tuber yield (q/ha) Total tuber yield (q/ha) Net Returns (Rs./ha) B:C >75g 25-75g <25g 25 % RDF + Control 30.6 63 180 53 296 29805 1.7 25 % RDF + 30 Nadep 31.4 64 207 53 324 36955 1.9 25 % RDF + 30 FYM 32.1 57 216 56 329 38595 1.9 50 % RDF + Control 39.4 79 220 49 358 43782 2.0 50 % RDF + 30 Nadep 36.7 80 218 62 360 42572 2.0 50 % RDF + 30 FYM 39.5 76 242 59 377 48672 2.0 75 % RDF + Control 46.5 91 230 61 382 47560 2.0 75 % RDF + 30 Nadep 45.5 102 250 64 416 54950 2.2 75 % RDF + 30 FYM 45.2 116 260 52 428 49550 2.3 100 % RDF + Control 48.4 96 243 65 404 51037 2.1 100% RDF + 30 Nadep 52.1 105 258 72 435 56927 2.2 100% RDF + 30 FYM 51.5 111 278 67 456 63627 2.3 Control 25.7 36 149 49 234 16528 1.4 CD(p=0.05) 4.3 18 22 12 35 - - Singh and Kushwant (2006), Gwailor, M.P. Indian J Agron 51:236-38
Table 16: Effect of combination of organic and inorganic nutrients on potato (pooled over two years) Treatment Number of tuber per m2 Total yield (t/ha) Cost of Cultivatio n B:C ratio Control 43.39 10.87 30221 1.41 100% Organic 52.76 22.30 38912 2.22 100% Inorganic 59.42 27.51 42140 2.52 75% organic + 25% Inorganic 55.22 24.43 39211 2.40 60% Organic + 40% Inorganic 57.37 27.53 40250 2.67 50% Organic + 50% Inorganic 59.84 28.12 40974 2.72 40% Organic + 60% Inorganic 61.31 28.82 41082 2.80 25% Organic + 75% Inorganic 59.12 27.23 42012 2.52 CD(p=0.05) NS 1.27 - - Sarkar et al (2011), Nadia, W.B. Potato J 38(1): 78-80 * % of Organic manures was calculated on the basis of N-equivalent of the recommended dose
Table 17: Effect of different planting pattern and drip irrigation on total tuber yield, WUE and on economics Treatment Total yield (q/ha) Water applied mm WUE kg/ha-mm Seed rate (q/ha) Cost of Cultivation Gross returns M1 268 700 38.3 30 61,000 71,500 M2 334 425 79.0 30 71,400 95,600 M3 338 425 79.5 30 71,400 98,000 M4 361 425 84.9 40 78,000 1,02,500 M5 417 425 98.1 40 78,000 1,30,500 M6 391 425 92.0 43 83,000 1,12,400 CD(p=0.05) 73.0 - - - - - Patel et al (2010), Deesa, Gujarat PotatoJ 37: 64-67 M1 = Furrow irrigation method M2 = Ridges and Furrow (50 cm apart)- Drip lateral in each furrow M3 = Flat method (50 cm apart)- Drip lateral between two rows M4 = Paired row (75 cm bed)- Drip lateral between two rows 20cm apart M5 = Broad bed of 150 cm with drip at alternate line (two lateral, 4 rows, 30 cm apart) M6 = Broad bed of 210 cm with drip at alternate line (three lateral, 6 rows, 30 cm apart)
Table 18: Effect of tricontanol on tuber grade and yield of Potato Treatment Dose g.a.i. ha-1 Size of tubers (per cent) Tuber yield (q ha-1) >75g 50-75g <50g 2002- 03 2003-04 2002- 03 2003- 04 2002- 03 2003- 04 2002- 03 2003- 04 Miraculan* 0.125 44 58 37 28 19 14 311.3 327.8 Miraculan 0.250 64 72 21 16 15 12 329.4 341.6 Miraculan 0.500 65 76 19 12 16 12 330.5 343.2 Miraculan 1.000 63 72 22 18 16 10 324.1 340.1 Vipul* 0.250 58 72 28 26 14 12 318.5 334.8 Vipul 0.500 65 68 15 23 20 9 326.3 342.1 Untreated - 37 42 46 34 17 24 296.8 303.6 LSD (p =0.05) - 2.81 3.56 3.17 4.32 2.56 4.12 5.14 4.40 Samui & Roy (2007), Nadia, W.B. J Crop & Weed 3: 35-36 •Tricontanol Trade name
Table 19: Effect of different methods of weed control on WCE, tuber yield and net returns Treatment No. of weed/0.25 m2 Dry wt. of weed at harvest (g m2) WCE (%) Tuber yield (q/ha) Net return Rs./ha B:C Fluchloralin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 5.28 1.37 79.7 149.4 36522 1.57 Fluchloralin@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 4.98 1.33 80.7 161.7 40799 1.71 Pendimethalin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 5.91 1.45 74.9 111.5 21071 0.90 Pendimethalin@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 5.78 1.45 74.6 116.4 22244 0.92 Metribuzin@ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 4.29 0.98 90.1 190.2 51959 2.15 Metribuzin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 4.30 1.16 87.1 185.4 49316 1.99 Diuron@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 4.70 1.22 85.6 174.7 47517 2.12 Diuron@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 4.92 1.23 84.4 166.4 43990 1.95 Farmer practice 4.96 1.25 84.4 172.4 43585 1.72 Weed free check 3.28 0.58 96.8 201.3 51520 1.78 Unweeded Check 9.05 2.04 0.00 78.0 9484 0.44 CD= 0.05 0.83 0.30 7.80 12.98 Channappa (2007), Dharwad, Karnataka Karnataka J Agric Sci 20: 715-18
Table 20: Effect of different weed management methods on weed density, weed dry weight, tuber number and yield of potato crop (pool over two years) Treatment Weed count/ m2 Weed dry weight/m2 Tuber no. (‘000/ha) Tuber weight (q/ha) Weed index (%)30 DAP 80 DAP 30 DAP 80 DAP Mark- etable Total Mark- etable Total Control 366.6 429.0 6.0 45.3 434.6 559.3 334.2 348.7 15.3 Weed free - - - - 527.0 688.3 396.1 411.5 0 One Weeding + Earthing up 350.9 67.4 5.5 4.8 446.0 559.7 345.8 358.9 12.8 Prometryn 50 WP (1.0 kg/ha) 49.5 103.8 1.2 7.1 515.2 663.2 388.1 408.1 0.8 Prometryn 50 WP (1.5 kg/ha) 44.1 52.8 1.1 2.5 497.1 633.2 384.2 401.5 2.4 Pendimethalin 30 EC 37.6 71.1 1.0 5.8 476.9 598.2 379.5 393.9 4.3 CD (p=0.05) 86.6 30.7 2.3 5.8 34.7 78.7 47.4 38.0 - Kumar et al (2009), Modipuram (U.P.) Potato J 36(1-2): 72-74
Farm implements and machines Potato production made less labour intensive, increased economic viability and timely operations through development of various farm machinery/implements Manually/engine operated endless screen type potato grader Poato Harvester
Conclusion Seed treatment with GA3 and Thiourea helps in breaking the dormancy Seed size of 30-40g gives higher yield of seed size tubers. 60 x 15 spacing is optimum for higher yield of seed size tubers and in economic terms as well. Haulm cutting at 80-90 DAP produces more no. of seed size tubers Application of FYM increase the seed tuber yield and total yield Drip irrigation improves the Water Use Efficiency. Fertilization through integrated nutrient management gives more returns per rupees invested. Chemical weed control helps in large scale seed production.
Thank You

More Related Content

PPSX
Hybrid Seed Production Technology of Maize
byMohammad Safar Noori
 
PPTX
HYBRID SEED PRODUCTION OF OKRA
byNugurusaichandan
 
PPTX
Soyabean crop production and quality seed production
byAshishNain
 
PPTX
Production technology of French bean
byStudent
 
PPTX
Genetic purity & DUS test , PPV&FRA
byB S MEENA
 
PPTX
Production technology of aloe.pptx
byRatneshKumarAhire1
 
PDF
Groundnut
byVarsha Gayatonde
 
PPTX
Production and protection technology of mungbean &amp; urdbean
byAnkit R. Chaudhary
 
Hybrid Seed Production Technology of Maize
byMohammad Safar Noori
 
HYBRID SEED PRODUCTION OF OKRA
byNugurusaichandan
 
Soyabean crop production and quality seed production
byAshishNain
 
Production technology of French bean
byStudent
 
Genetic purity & DUS test , PPV&FRA
byB S MEENA
 
Production technology of aloe.pptx
byRatneshKumarAhire1
 
Groundnut
byVarsha Gayatonde
 
Production and protection technology of mungbean &amp; urdbean
byAnkit R. Chaudhary
 

What's hot

PPTX
Production technology of garden pea
byKerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, India.
 
DOCX
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF POTATO
byHARISH J
 
PDF
Brinjal
byVarsha Gayatonde
 
PPTX
Hybrid seed production of rice
byNSStudents
 
PPT
Chilli seed production 31.10.18
byAbhishek Malpani
 
PPTX
Production technology of wheat and uses.pdf
bywatsonferno
 
PPTX
Seed production of sorghum
byVasantrao Nail Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
 
PPS
Floral biology and crossing techniques in groundnut
byManjappa Ganiger
 
PPTX
Carrot cultivation
byom prakash kumawat
 
PPTX
Seed sampling, mixing and dividing
bynimmu307
 
PPT
PROTECTED CULTIVATION OF TOMATO
byAdhiyamaan Raj
 
PPTX
vegetable Breeding by adnan
byPMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi
 
PPTX
Cucumber
byIhsanullahshareefi
 
PPT
Pearlmillet heterosis and hybrid seed production
byDipti jaglan
 
PPTX
Seed production in tomato
byGourammaHongal
 
PDF
Sugarcane
byPriyanka S
 
PPTX
Hybrid seed production in cabbage
byDIVYA DHARSHINI V
 
PPTX
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF GROUNDNUT
byhariniperumal1
 
PPTX
Groundnut
byMohana Priya Balamurugan
 
PPTX
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF MANGO
byP RP
 
Production technology of garden pea
byKerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, India.
 
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF POTATO
byHARISH J
 
Brinjal
byVarsha Gayatonde
 
Hybrid seed production of rice
byNSStudents
 
Chilli seed production 31.10.18
byAbhishek Malpani
 
Production technology of wheat and uses.pdf
bywatsonferno
 
Seed production of sorghum
byVasantrao Nail Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
 
Floral biology and crossing techniques in groundnut
byManjappa Ganiger
 
Carrot cultivation
byom prakash kumawat
 
Seed sampling, mixing and dividing
bynimmu307
 
PROTECTED CULTIVATION OF TOMATO
byAdhiyamaan Raj
 
vegetable Breeding by adnan
byPMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi
 
Cucumber
byIhsanullahshareefi
 
Pearlmillet heterosis and hybrid seed production
byDipti jaglan
 
Seed production in tomato
byGourammaHongal
 
Sugarcane
byPriyanka S
 
Hybrid seed production in cabbage
byDIVYA DHARSHINI V
 
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF GROUNDNUT
byhariniperumal1
 
Groundnut
byMohana Priya Balamurugan
 
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF MANGO
byP RP
 

Similar to Seed Potato Production

PPTX
Seed Production Technology of Vegetative propagated vegetables.
byBajrangKusro
 
PPTX
Production technique of true potato seed
byABHISHEK TIWARI
 
PPTX
potato.pptx
byVikki Nandeshwar
 
PPTX
Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Potato is a versatile, starchy
byBablu Singh Cheema
 
PPTX
breeder seed production in potato.pptx
bySHUBHAM JAGGA
 
PPTX
cultivation practices in Potato, true potato seed (TPS)and its commercial usage
byBrahmesh Reddy B R
 
PPT
Potato (1).ppt jendjdhbddjjds shhsidhdhd shhsidndnshsn
byjjeyaprakash694
 
PPTX
Cultivation practice of Potato in nepal.pptx
byUmeshTimilsina1
 
PPTX
Cultivation Practice of Potato in Nepal.pptx
byUmeshTimilsina1
 
PPTX
seed production of potato
byDev Hingra
 
PDF
Potato seed production systems
byamoldchokhat
 
PPTX
ADVANCES IN THE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF POTATO
bypavanknaik
 
PPTX
TRUE POTATO SEED Production Technique
byANKIT SINGH
 
PPTX
True Potato Seed Production Technology: A New Approach to Disease free Potato...
byJayasankar Agri
 
PPTX
Production Practices and Crop Improvement of Potato in the World
byBishnu Prasad Ghimire
 
PPTX
Crop improvement in potato
byShaamArafath
 
PPTX
L8 potato HRT 255.pptx
byflamingbutterfly
 
PDF
Sess10 4 vandanar a. kumar and atul kumar – integration of in vitro technique...
byAfrican Potato Association (APA)
 
PPSX
POTATO cultivation variety and cultural practice
byanubhavrxl85
 
PPTX
Organic prodution of potato
bySourav Panwar
 
Seed Production Technology of Vegetative propagated vegetables.
byBajrangKusro
 
Production technique of true potato seed
byABHISHEK TIWARI
 
potato.pptx
byVikki Nandeshwar
 
Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Potato is a versatile, starchy
byBablu Singh Cheema
 
breeder seed production in potato.pptx
bySHUBHAM JAGGA
 
cultivation practices in Potato, true potato seed (TPS)and its commercial usage
byBrahmesh Reddy B R
 
Potato (1).ppt jendjdhbddjjds shhsidhdhd shhsidndnshsn
byjjeyaprakash694
 
Cultivation practice of Potato in nepal.pptx
byUmeshTimilsina1
 
Cultivation Practice of Potato in Nepal.pptx
byUmeshTimilsina1
 
seed production of potato
byDev Hingra
 
Potato seed production systems
byamoldchokhat
 
ADVANCES IN THE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY OF POTATO
bypavanknaik
 
TRUE POTATO SEED Production Technique
byANKIT SINGH
 
True Potato Seed Production Technology: A New Approach to Disease free Potato...
byJayasankar Agri
 
Production Practices and Crop Improvement of Potato in the World
byBishnu Prasad Ghimire
 
Crop improvement in potato
byShaamArafath
 
L8 potato HRT 255.pptx
byflamingbutterfly
 
Sess10 4 vandanar a. kumar and atul kumar – integration of in vitro technique...
byAfrican Potato Association (APA)
 
POTATO cultivation variety and cultural practice
byanubhavrxl85
 
Organic prodution of potato
bySourav Panwar
 

Recently uploaded

PPTX
Appreciations - Jan 26 01.pptxkjkjkkjkjkjkj
bypreetheshparmar
 
PDF
West Hatch High School - GCSE French Specification
byWestHatch
 
PPTX
The night at deoli - Ruskin bond's story of first love
byrajibhammar4
 
PPTX
Drug Distribution in Pharmacology: Mechanisms, Barriers, Factors & Volume of ...
byamrin3379
 
PPTX
Toba Tek Singh - Visualising Partition through Manto's Lens
bymiraljoshi48
 
PPTX
Master of Punjabi Short Story "kartar singh duggal
bybhautikbharwad4
 
PPTX
PREVENTIVE PEDIATRICS.pptx
byBANDITA PATRA
 
PDF
Aminoglycosides.pdf for B.Pharmacy Medicinal Chemistry-III (BP601T), GPAT, a...
bymominzarinamdnajeeb
 
PDF
Risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence in education: A critical view
byYannis
 
PPTX
Grade 9 and 10 learner Fuse and Switch.pptx
byCarlJohnCabayao
 
PPTX
That long silence - Novel by Shashi Deshapande
bysanjanavaghela65
 
PPTX
Payment Follow-Up via WhatsApp in Odoo 18.1 Accounting
byCeline George
 
PPTX
Drugs modulating serotonergic system.pptx
byNorman Arockiaraj G
 
PPTX
" Jaya : Silence as Resistance " - That long silence
bydharabhandari35
 
PPTX
West Hatch High School: Year 9 Art Course
byWestHatch
 
PDF
Information about the author Shashi Deshpande
bydarshanaparmar6522
 
PPTX
West Hatch High School -- GCSE Geography
byWestHatch
 
PPT
West Hatch High School - GCSE History Option
byWestHatch
 
PPTX
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection
bynabinabhaila40
 
PPTX
Poster Based Ethical Reflection - Dharma and Values Poster.pptx
byRajshreeBeneymadoo
 
Appreciations - Jan 26 01.pptxkjkjkkjkjkjkj
bypreetheshparmar
 
West Hatch High School - GCSE French Specification
byWestHatch
 
The night at deoli - Ruskin bond's story of first love
byrajibhammar4
 
Drug Distribution in Pharmacology: Mechanisms, Barriers, Factors & Volume of ...
byamrin3379
 
Toba Tek Singh - Visualising Partition through Manto's Lens
bymiraljoshi48
 
Master of Punjabi Short Story "kartar singh duggal
bybhautikbharwad4
 
PREVENTIVE PEDIATRICS.pptx
byBANDITA PATRA
 
Aminoglycosides.pdf for B.Pharmacy Medicinal Chemistry-III (BP601T), GPAT, a...
bymominzarinamdnajeeb
 
Risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence in education: A critical view
byYannis
 
Grade 9 and 10 learner Fuse and Switch.pptx
byCarlJohnCabayao
 
That long silence - Novel by Shashi Deshapande
bysanjanavaghela65
 
Payment Follow-Up via WhatsApp in Odoo 18.1 Accounting
byCeline George
 
Drugs modulating serotonergic system.pptx
byNorman Arockiaraj G
 
" Jaya : Silence as Resistance " - That long silence
bydharabhandari35
 
West Hatch High School: Year 9 Art Course
byWestHatch
 
Information about the author Shashi Deshpande
bydarshanaparmar6522
 
West Hatch High School -- GCSE Geography
byWestHatch
 
West Hatch High School - GCSE History Option
byWestHatch
 
Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infection
bynabinabhaila40
 
Poster Based Ethical Reflection - Dharma and Values Poster.pptx
byRajshreeBeneymadoo
 

Seed Potato Production

  • 1.
    Agronomic strategies for enhancingseed potato production Harmanjeet Singh L-2013-A-02-M
  • 2.
    Introduction • Major non-cerealfood crop, ranks 4th in production in the world after wheat, maize and rice. • Originated in Andean region i.e. Southern Peru and Bolivia where it is domesticated 7000- 10000 year ago. • Europeans introduced potato in India during late 16th century or early 17th century • The Great Famine, due to blight in the 1845 which resulted in 1 million Irish people dying and another 1 million migrating.
  • 3.
    •Family Solanaceae •Important cultivatedspecies Solanum tuberosum ssp. tuberosum Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena •2n= 48, tetraploid •Cross pollinated •About 60 cm high culm •Green cherry fruits (300 seed in each) •Potato stolons: lateral stems grow horizontally •Potato tubers: modified stem, initiation of young tubers at the tip of stolons at 35-40 DAP, process called tuberization. •Minute scale leaves with buds (eyes) Stolon Tuber Taxonomy & Morphology Fruit Flower
  • 4.
    Area, Production &Productivity World Total Production = 368.1 m t China = 88.9 m t India = 44.31 m t Russia = 30.2 m t India Area = 2.02 m ha Production = 44.31 m t Productivity = 219.6 q/ha Punjab Area = 85250 ha Production = 2.13 m t Productivity = 249.8 q/ha Source: FAO, 2013-14 www.indiastat.com 1/3 of total produced by China and India. Major potato producing states: U.P., W.B., Bihar, Punjab, Haryana
  • 5.
    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1949-50 1959-60 1969-701979-80 1989-90 1999-00 2003-04 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Area (Lakh ha) Production (mt) Yield (t/ha) Increase in area, production and productivity of Potato in India (1949/50 – 2012-13) www.indiastat.com
  • 6.
    Current Scenario India isproducing 45.34 m tons (2012-13) from 1.99 m ha at an average productivity of 21.9 t/ha. 2.96 m tons (8.5%) of the produce is used as seed. 2.8 m tons (7.5%) of the produce is processed. 0.1 m tons are exported Post harvest losses are nearly 16% of the total produce. www.indiastat.com
  • 7.
    Potato Research inIndia Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla (CPRI) established in 1949 It has 7 research centres • CPRIC, Modipuram, Meerut (UP) • CPRS, Jalandhar (Punjab) • CPRS, Gwalior (MP) • CPRS, Patna (Bihar) • CPRS, Kufri-Fagu, Shimla (HP) • CPRS, Udagamandalam (Tamilnadu) • CPRS, Shillong (Meghlaya) All India Coordinated Reseaech Project Potato (AICRP),1970 has headquarter at CPRI, Shimla has a nationwide network of 25 centers (7 CPRI based centers, 17 SAU based centers and 1 Voluntary center)
  • 8.
    Sexual True potato Seed(TPS) Asexual Micro-propagation Meristem culture Seed potato Tuber indexing
  • 9.
    Microtubers: 50-60% survival Fieldmultiplication-1 Field multiplication-2 Basic or Breeder Seed Microplants Microtubers Minitubers Culturing in liquid media Microtuber in vitro Micro Propagation
  • 10.
    VIRUSES Potato Virus XPotato Virus S Potato Virus M Potato Virus Y Potato Leaf Roll Virus Potato Virus A Tuber Indexing by ELISA
  • 11.
    Clonal field multiplication 100x 100 cm, 100% tested, individual harvest STAGE - I STAGE - II Separate clones in rows in field 100 x 20 cm; rogue; 100% tested in composite sample; bulk harvest Breeder seed Stage III and IV, 60X20 cm, rogue, bulk harvested
  • 12.
    SYSTEM OF SEEDPRODUCTION Tuber selection and indexing (Nucleus seed) Nucleus seed
  • 13.
    True Potato Seed(TPS) True Potato Seed (TPS) can be used in 3 ways:- 1. Direct seeding of TPS in the field 2. Transplanting TPS derived seedlings 3. Planting seedling tubers raised from TPS Problems: 1. Low germination %age 2. Heavy weed problems 3. Slow growth of plants 4. Dormancy period of 4-6 months 5. Isolation: 50m
  • 14.
    SEED POTATO Potato tuberof definite size are used for further multiplication Should be free from all viral diseases Should not have been grown in areas where wart, cyst nematode and other quarantine diseases are endemic Should be either free from soil and tuber borne diseases or carry them within permissible limits Should be of proper physiological age
  • 15.
    Advantages • Seed hasa high % germination • Crop has a better rate of establishment • Seed has a higher yield • Seed is true to type • Fewer pests and diseases • Easier to market the crop • Quite expensive •Isolation required •Non availability •Transportation •Lack of awareness •Requirement non-infested field from pathogens Disadvantages Certified seed
  • 16.
    General Seed CertificationStandards for Seed Potato I. Classification : 1. Hill Seed (HS): 2500 m ASL 2. Plains seed (PS): where low aphid infestation during the crop growing season II. Land Requirements : not infested with wart , cyst forming nematodes, brown rot within the previous 3 years or common scab. III. Field Inspection: Minimum 4 inspections : First inspection: In the hills- 45 DAP In Plains- 35 DAP Second inspection: 60-70 DAP Third inspection: Immediately after haulms cutting/destruction Fourth inspection:10 days after haulms cutting/destruction IV. Isolation: 5 m for FS and CS
  • 17.
    Seed Standards forseed potato Size Mean length and two widths at the middle of tuber Corresponding weight Hill seed (HS) Seed size 30mm-60mm 25-150gm Large size above 60mm above 150gm Plains seed (HS) Small size 30 mm- 55 mm 25-125gm Large size above 55 mm above 125 gm 1. Size based on mean length or weight 2. Permissible limit for non seed size tuber <5.0% (by number) 3. Cut, cracked tubers < 1.0% (by weight.) 4. Greenish pigmentation allowed
  • 18.
    Shift from hillsto plains Before 1970 Seed production shifted from the hills to the northern plains to cater to the large demand of seed.  Hill seed may not of right physiological age for use in the plains  Hill soils may carries soil borne pathogens due to continuous potato production, which often not found in the plains  Long distance transport  Area in hills is insufficient for seed production
  • 19.
  • 20.
    COMPONENTS OF SEEDPLOT TECHNIQUE  Systemic granular insecticide at planting/earthing  Removal of off types & diseased plants  1-2 sprays of systemic insecticide + Metalaxyl-Mancozeb in Dec- Jan  Crop rotation 2-3 yrs  Tuber treatment- boric acid Source: Seed potato production manual CPRI,Shimla
  • 21.
    IMPACT OF SEEDPLOT TECHNIQUE  CPRI produce =2550 t Breeder seed/year  CPRI give =2000 t to NSC or SSCs  Saving US $ in million annually on seed import  India is the only Asian country with a well established, scientific seed production programme. 2000 t Breeder Seed 12000 t Foundation seed (Stage- I) 72000 t Foundation seed (Stage- II) 432000 t or 0.43 mt Certified seed (Stage- I) Seed requirement of country = 1.99 m ha X 3.0 t/ha = 5.97 m t Solution: Farmer can own seed with suitable agronomic strategies, free from virus and diseases Multiplication rate 6 times
  • 22.
    Different Agronomic practicesinvolved in production of quality seed potato 1. Seed treatment (Growth regulator, Microbial) 2. Seed rate 3. Seed size 4. Spacing 5. Method of planting 6. Inter-culture (Earthing up etc.) 7. Irrigation 8. Fertilizer management 9. Weed management 10.Haulm cutting
  • 23.
    Treatment Germination %ageNo. of sprouts/ plant Plant Height Control Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised Thiourea @ 0.25% Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised Thiourea @ 0.50% Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised GA3 @ 2 ppm Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised GA3 @ 5 ppm Whole tuber Cut tuber Cut + Incised CD (p=0.05) 88.8 91.7 93.1 92.4 95.5 98.0 94.2 96.6 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.47 2.9 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7 5.1 4.2 4.5 4.2 4.6 5.2 6.1 4.0 4.8 5.6 0.55 26.0 26.4 26.1 28.2 30.5 30.1 29.4 30.7 30.2 30.4 32.0 32.9 31.6 34.6 35.9 1.82 Table 1: Effect of mechanical and chemical treatment on germination, no. of sprouts/ plant and plant height Mohan (1993), PAU, Ludhiana M.Sc. Thesis Pp: 36
  • 24.
    Table 2: Effectof foliar spray of PGRs on growth characters, graded tuber number and yield of potato (pooled data of two years) Treatment Grade wise no. of tubers (lakh/ha) Grade wise tubers yield (q/ha) Total tuber yield (q/ha) <25g 25-75g >75g <25g 25-75g >75g GA3 @200 ppm 1.14 2.72 1.98 1.60 13.7 21.7 37.0 NAA @50 ppm 1.02 2.64 1.60 1.52 13.8 19.3 34.6 MC @150 ppm 0.76 1.86 2.15 1.14 8.6 23.9 33.6 TIBA 50 ppm 0.82 2.06 2.00 1.33 9.8 23.0 34.1 Ethrel @250 ppm 1.08 2.30 2.11 1.72 11.0 22.3 35.0 2.4-D @1 ppm 0.78 1.78 2.14 1.05 8.2 21.9 31.2 Control 0.86 1.70 1.96 1.15 8.6 20.6 30.4 CD(p=0.05) 0.13 0.31 0.10 0.14 1.82 1.93 2.76 Birbal et al (2009), Gwalior, M.P. Indian J Agril Sci 79(9): 684-6 Two Sprays at 25 & 50 DAP
  • 25.
    Table 3: Effectof biofertilizers and nirogen levels on growth parameters, yield and nutrient uptake Treatment Plant height (cm) Stems/ m2 Tubers /m2 Tuber yield (tonnes/ ha) Total nutrients (kg/ha) N P K Microbial treatment Control 36.7 31.3 52.8 195.5 73.2 6.53 75.6 Azotobacter 42.5 32.1 55.8 208.2 82.7 7.48 84.1 Phospho-inoculant culture 45.8 33.7 56.5 208.9 81.9 8.96 83.2 Azotobacter + Phospho- inoculant culture 47.3 34.2 59.8 225.3 89.6 9.78 91.7 CD(p=0.05) 7.2 NS NS 21.6 9.2 1.4 8.9 Nitrogen (kg/ha) 0 32.3 28.7 50.3 153.7 53.8 4.87 55.3 50 39.5 32.3 54.5 215.5 76.2 7.12 75.9 100 44.7 33.8 58.3 228.4 84.7 8.47 86.9 150 49.2 35.2 61.5 236.2 90.5 9.21 88.7 CD(p=0.05) 8.7 NS 6.8 25.3 8.7 2.3 10.5 Singh (2001), Meghalaya Indian J Agron 46: 375-79Interaction= NS
  • 26.
    Table 4: Effectof biofertilizers and nitrogen levels on graded tuber yields, yield and net returns Treatment Graded tuber yield (tonnes/ha) Tuber yield (tonnes/ha) Net Returns (Rs/ha) >100 g 20-100g <20 g Microbial treatment Control 2.4 9.9 2.8 15.1 19948 Azotobacter 3.2 10.0 3.2 16.4 24548 Phospho-inoculant culture 3.1 10.5 2.9 16.5 25048 Azotobacter + Phospho- inoculant culture 3.5 11.1 3.1 17.7 29748 CD(p=0.05) 0.7 NS NS 1.3 - Nitrogen (kg/ha) 0 1.6 7.9 2.8 12.3 8825 50 3.3 10.3 3.0 16.6 25690 100 3.5 11.4 3.2 18.1 30755 150 3.7 12.2 3.0 18.9 34020 CD(p=0.05) 0.4 0.6 NS 0.7 - Singh (2001), Meghalaya Indian J Agron 46: 375-79Interaction= NS
  • 27.
    Treatment Plant height(cm) No. of stems/hill Leaf area (cm2) Dry matter/plant (g) 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP <20 g 36.9 49.6 1.58 2.54 31.4 45.9 10.4 48.1 21-30 g 37.4 51.2 1.89 2.87 33.4 47.4 11.8 52.1 31-40 g 37.9 54.6 2.67 3.69 35.3 48.7 13.4 58.3 41-50 g 39.1 55.3 3.07 4.10 36.7 51.1 15.4 61.8 51-60 g 39.8 56.6 3.81 4.42 38.1 52.8 16.7 66.1 CD (p=0.05) 1.53 1.95 0.16 0.17 0.91 1.46 1.62 1.49 Table 5: Effect of seed tuber size on growth parameters Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka) Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50
  • 28.
    Treatment Tuber yield/plantTuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Total tuber yield/ha (t) Grade <20 g Grade 21-50 g Grade >50g Seed tuber size <20 g 33.6 (13.8*) 122.0 (50.2) 87.4 (35.9) 12.8 21-30 g 30.3 (9.73) 157.0 (50.4) 124.1 (39.8) 16.5 31-40 g 23.7 (7.02) 182.0 (53.9) 132.0 (39.0) 17.6 41-50 g 19.2 (5.69) 171.0 (50.7) 146.9 (43.6) 17.8 51-60 g 14.5 (4.34) 118.0 (35.5) 200.5 (60.2) 17.9 CD (p=0.05) 0.83 3.76 8.05 0.70 Haulm killing date 60 DAP 25.1 (10.1) 136.0 (54.5) 88.0 (35.5) 13.2 70 DAP 26.7 (9.22) 143.0 (49.5) 120.0 (41.3) 15.3 80 DAP 23.6 (6.94) 159.0 (46.8) 157.0 (46.2) 17.9 90 DAP 21.7 (5.84) 163.0 (43.7) 188.0 (50.5) 19.7 CD (p=0.05) 0.75 3.36 7.20 0.63 Table 6: Effect of seed tuber size and date of haulm cutting on yield parameters * Figures in bracket indicates the per cent distribution of grade wise tuber yield per plant on weight basis Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka) Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50
  • 29.
    Treatment Tuber yield/plantTuber yield/plant Tuber yield/plant Total tuber yield/ha (t) Grade <20 g Grade 21-50 g Grade >50g S1 X 60 DAP S1 X 70 DAP S1 X 80 DAP S1 X 90 DAP S2 X 60 DAP S2 X 70 DAP S2 X 80 DAP S2 X 90 DAP S3 X 60 DAP S3 X 70 DAP S3 X 80 DAP S3 X 90 DAP S4 X 60 DAP S4 X 70 DAP S4 X 80 DAP S4 X 90 DAP S5 X 60 DAP S4 X 70 DAP S4 X 80 DAP S4 X 90 DAP CD (p=0.05) 34.04* 37.04 31.83 31.67 30.42 33.16 31.03 26.47 24.58 24.72 23.04 22.56 19.84 21.81 18.68 11.47 16.47 16.67 13.22 16.58 1.68 106.27 118.21 126.47 137.94 139.59 153.94 167.85 168.18 146.02 167.79 201.74 214.23 145.41 152.08 190.96 97.49 140.97 126.34 107.91 196.04 7.51 61.16 84.04 97.13 107.21 87.82 115.46 140.11 153.19 94.28 117.10 146.72 169.93 94.61 121.31 168.29 306.21 103.72 160.02 231.97 203.53 16.10 10.60 12.68 13.42 14.72 13.64 15.85 17.97 18.55 13.93 16.46 19.65 21.74 13.73 15.64 19.92 21.69 13.98 16.11 18.57 22.06 1.40 Table 7: Interaction effect of seed tuber size and date of haulm cutting on yield * thousand tuber/ha Kumar et al (2009) Dharwad (Karnataka) Potato J 36(1-2): 45-50<20 g = S1 21-30 g = S2 31-40 g = S3 41-50 = S4 51-60 g = S5
  • 30.
    Table 8: Effectof seed size and spacing on growth parameters and yield Treatment Seed Rate (q/ha) No. of Sprouts / plant Plant height (cm) Tuber yield Total tuber yieldLarge >50mm Medium 25-50 mm Small <25mm 25-45g + 10 cm 33.3 2.6 29.6 34.0 168.8 14.8 217.7 25-45g + 12.5 cm 26.6 3.0 31.5 48.8 142.2 18.6 209.9 25-45g + 15 cm 22.2 3.2 31.6 42.9 122.9 18.6 184.4 45-75g + 15 cm 50.0 5.0 32.1 94.2 186.6 32.5 313.3 45-75g + 17.5 cm 42.8 5.5 32.4 80.0 182.2 31.1 293.3 45-75g + 20 cm 37.5 5.6 33.4 75.5 174.8 28.1 278.4 >75g + 20 cm 62.5 5.6 33.3 89.3 203.0 24.8 317.0 >75g + 25 cm 50.0 5.7 33.8 84.4 173.3 35.5 271.1 >75g + 30 cm 41.6 5.8 35.9 81.4 155.5 34.0 248.8 LSD = 0.05 0.32 1.73 3.30 26.41 1.31 30.22 Mohan (1993), PAU (Ludhiana) M.Sc. Thesis Pp: 46
  • 31.
    Table 9: Effectof spacing, and date of haulm cutting on growth and yield Treatment Stems /plant Tuber no. (‘000/ha) Tuber yield (q/ha) <10 g 10-40 g >40 g Total <10 g 10-40 g >40 g Total Spacing (cm x cm) 50 X 10 4.57 449 573 61 1083 40 177 48 265 50 X 15 5.03 351 460 79 890 31 151 66 248 CD(p=0.05) 0.45 67 48 11 88 5 14 10 NS Dehaulming 60 DAP 5.18 311 511 44 866 23 141 31 194 70 DAP 4.90 432 511 75 1017 40 166 62 268 80 DAP 4.32 457 528 91 1076 43 186 77 305 CD(p=0.05) 0.55 83 NS 13 108 6 17 12 25 Kumar et al (2001), Modipuram Indian J Agric Sci 71: 658-60
  • 32.
    Table 10: Effectof seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Jalandhar (pooled data of 3 years) Treatment Total yield (t/ha) Seed size Cost of Cultivation ( x 103 Rs./ha) Net returns (x 103 Rs./ha) B:C ratio No.( x 103/ha) Yield (t/ha) Row Spacing(cm) 60 X15 30.11 408.6 14.55 60.4 103.7 2.72 60 X10 31.22 564.6 16.81 78.2 97.1 2.24 CD(p=0.05) 0.76 17.4 0.68 - - - Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha) 150+35+66 30.34 467.6 15.41 68.8 98.8 2.44 150+52+66 30.99 505.7 15.96 69.9 102.0 2.46 CD(p=0.05) NS 17.4 NS - - - Haulm Cutting (DAP) 70 28.69 484.7 15.22 69.3 91.1 2.31 80 32.64 488.5 16.15 69.3 110.0 2.58 CD(p=0.05) 0.76 NS 0.68 - - - Dua et al (2008), Jalandhar Indian J Agron 53: 201-26
  • 33.
    Table 11: Effectof seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Faizabad (pooled data of 3 years) Treatment Total yield (t/ha) Seed size Cost of Cultivation (x 103 Rs./ha) Net returns (x 103 Rs./ha) B:C ratio No.( x 103/ha) Yield (t/ha) Row Spacing(cm) 60 X15 27.53 450.5 14.71 57.9 96.4 2.67 60 X10 28.49 494.8 15.87 75.7 85.9 2.14 CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.9 0.65 - - - Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha) 100+35+66 26.11 435.4 14.06 65.0 81.6 2.26 150+52+66 29.90 509.9 16.53 68.5 100.7 2.47 CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.1 0.61 - - - Haulm Cutting (DAP) 70 25.67 439.3 14.06 66.8 78.1 2.17 80 30.35 505.9 16.53 66.8 104.2 2.56 CD(p=0.05) 0.87 14.3 0.63 - - - Dua et al (2008), Faizabad Indian J Agron 53: 201-26
  • 34.
    Table 12: Effectof seed size, nutrient level and date of haulm cutting on total tuber yield, seed tuber yield and on economics at Modipuram (pooled data of 3 years) Treatment Total yield (t/ha) Seed size Cost of Cultivation ( x103 Rs./ha) Net returns (x103 Rs./ha) B:C ratio No.( x103/ha) Yield (t/ha) Row Spacing(cm) 60 X15 23.32 486.5 13.44 57.9 75.7 2.31 60 X10 25.80 597.0 16.45 75.7 76.9 2.02 CD(p=0.05) 1.30 47.74 1.46 - - - Fertilizer level (N+P+K kg/ha) 100+35+66 23.71 563.5 15.98 65.0 77.8 2.20 150+52+66 25.40 520.1 13.92 68.5 74.8 2.09 CD(p=0.05) 1.32 NS 1.46 - - - Haulm Cutting (DAP) 70 22.91 552.8 15.12 66.8 70.2 2.05 80 26.21 530.8 14.77 66.8 82.4 2.23 CD(p=0.05) 1.29 NS NS - - - Dua et al (2008), Modipuram Indian J Agron 53: 201-26
  • 35.
    Table 13: Effectof foliar spray of PGRs on growth characters and graded tuber number and yield of potato Treatment Grade wise tuber tubers (t/ha) Total tuber yield (t/ha)>55mm 45-54mm 35-44mm <35mm K level K0 1.3 1.7 4.4 2.9 10.4 K60 7.9 3.8 4.7 2.4 18.9 K90 9.4 3.9 4.8 2.3 20.5 K120 10.1 4.4 4.9 2.2 21.7 CD (p=0.05) 1.8 0.7 NS NS 1.5 Nitrogen level N120 6.0 3.2 4.2 2.5 16.8 N180 8.3 3.6 4.9 2.4 19.0 CD (p=0.05) 1.5 0.3 0.2 NS 1.7 Foliar KNO3 (%) 0.0 6.6 3.2 4.7 2.3 16.9 1.0 7.8 3.7 4.7 2.6 18.9 CD(p= 0.05) 1.0 0.3 NS 0.2 1.3 Brar and Kaur (2006), Ludhiana Indian J Agril Sci 76:740-43
  • 36.
    Table 14: Effectof different levels of applied N and K through soil and foliar application on graded and total tuber yield Treatment Grade wise tuber yield Total tuber yield (t/ha) >55mm 45-54mm 35-44mm <35mm N120K0 0.8 1.4 4.4 3.0 9.7 N120K0 F 1.3 1.5 5.0 3.2 10.1 N180K0 1.4 1.6 4.3 2.5 9.8 N180K0 F 1.7 2.3 4.1 3.2 11.3 N120K60 5.4 2.8 4.6 2.4 15.3 N120K60 F 6.1 4.3 4.8 2.6 17.9 N180K60 9.7 3.5 4.4 2.3 20.1 N180K60F 10.4 4.7 5.0 2.4 22.7 N120K90 7.7 3.5 5.1 2.1 18.5 N120K90 F 9.5 3.9 4.6 2.4 20.4 N180K90 8.6 4.3 5.2 2.4 20.5 N180K90 F 11.9 3.9 3.5 2.4 22.9 N120K120 8.1 4.4 5.7 2.3 20.4 N120K120 F 9.3 4.5 5.6 2.4 21.8 N180K120 10.9 4.1 4.1 2.0 21.2 N180K120 F 12.1 4.6 4.5 2.4 23.6 CD=0.05 3.1 1.0 NS NS 3.7 Brar and Kaur (2006), Ludhiana Indian J Agril Sci 76:740-43
  • 37.
    Table 15: Effectof combination of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on growth, graded and total tuber yield and net returns Treatment (NPK + manure t/ha) Plant height (cm) Grade wise tuber yield (q/ha) Total tuber yield (q/ha) Net Returns (Rs./ha) B:C >75g 25-75g <25g 25 % RDF + Control 30.6 63 180 53 296 29805 1.7 25 % RDF + 30 Nadep 31.4 64 207 53 324 36955 1.9 25 % RDF + 30 FYM 32.1 57 216 56 329 38595 1.9 50 % RDF + Control 39.4 79 220 49 358 43782 2.0 50 % RDF + 30 Nadep 36.7 80 218 62 360 42572 2.0 50 % RDF + 30 FYM 39.5 76 242 59 377 48672 2.0 75 % RDF + Control 46.5 91 230 61 382 47560 2.0 75 % RDF + 30 Nadep 45.5 102 250 64 416 54950 2.2 75 % RDF + 30 FYM 45.2 116 260 52 428 49550 2.3 100 % RDF + Control 48.4 96 243 65 404 51037 2.1 100% RDF + 30 Nadep 52.1 105 258 72 435 56927 2.2 100% RDF + 30 FYM 51.5 111 278 67 456 63627 2.3 Control 25.7 36 149 49 234 16528 1.4 CD(p=0.05) 4.3 18 22 12 35 - - Singh and Kushwant (2006), Gwailor, M.P. Indian J Agron 51:236-38
  • 38.
    Table 16: Effectof combination of organic and inorganic nutrients on potato (pooled over two years) Treatment Number of tuber per m2 Total yield (t/ha) Cost of Cultivatio n B:C ratio Control 43.39 10.87 30221 1.41 100% Organic 52.76 22.30 38912 2.22 100% Inorganic 59.42 27.51 42140 2.52 75% organic + 25% Inorganic 55.22 24.43 39211 2.40 60% Organic + 40% Inorganic 57.37 27.53 40250 2.67 50% Organic + 50% Inorganic 59.84 28.12 40974 2.72 40% Organic + 60% Inorganic 61.31 28.82 41082 2.80 25% Organic + 75% Inorganic 59.12 27.23 42012 2.52 CD(p=0.05) NS 1.27 - - Sarkar et al (2011), Nadia, W.B. Potato J 38(1): 78-80 * % of Organic manures was calculated on the basis of N-equivalent of the recommended dose
  • 39.
    Table 17: Effectof different planting pattern and drip irrigation on total tuber yield, WUE and on economics Treatment Total yield (q/ha) Water applied mm WUE kg/ha-mm Seed rate (q/ha) Cost of Cultivation Gross returns M1 268 700 38.3 30 61,000 71,500 M2 334 425 79.0 30 71,400 95,600 M3 338 425 79.5 30 71,400 98,000 M4 361 425 84.9 40 78,000 1,02,500 M5 417 425 98.1 40 78,000 1,30,500 M6 391 425 92.0 43 83,000 1,12,400 CD(p=0.05) 73.0 - - - - - Patel et al (2010), Deesa, Gujarat PotatoJ 37: 64-67 M1 = Furrow irrigation method M2 = Ridges and Furrow (50 cm apart)- Drip lateral in each furrow M3 = Flat method (50 cm apart)- Drip lateral between two rows M4 = Paired row (75 cm bed)- Drip lateral between two rows 20cm apart M5 = Broad bed of 150 cm with drip at alternate line (two lateral, 4 rows, 30 cm apart) M6 = Broad bed of 210 cm with drip at alternate line (three lateral, 6 rows, 30 cm apart)
  • 40.
    Table 18: Effectof tricontanol on tuber grade and yield of Potato Treatment Dose g.a.i. ha-1 Size of tubers (per cent) Tuber yield (q ha-1) >75g 50-75g <50g 2002- 03 2003-04 2002- 03 2003- 04 2002- 03 2003- 04 2002- 03 2003- 04 Miraculan* 0.125 44 58 37 28 19 14 311.3 327.8 Miraculan 0.250 64 72 21 16 15 12 329.4 341.6 Miraculan 0.500 65 76 19 12 16 12 330.5 343.2 Miraculan 1.000 63 72 22 18 16 10 324.1 340.1 Vipul* 0.250 58 72 28 26 14 12 318.5 334.8 Vipul 0.500 65 68 15 23 20 9 326.3 342.1 Untreated - 37 42 46 34 17 24 296.8 303.6 LSD (p =0.05) - 2.81 3.56 3.17 4.32 2.56 4.12 5.14 4.40 Samui & Roy (2007), Nadia, W.B. J Crop & Weed 3: 35-36 •Tricontanol Trade name
  • 41.
    Table 19: Effectof different methods of weed control on WCE, tuber yield and net returns Treatment No. of weed/0.25 m2 Dry wt. of weed at harvest (g m2) WCE (%) Tuber yield (q/ha) Net return Rs./ha B:C Fluchloralin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 5.28 1.37 79.7 149.4 36522 1.57 Fluchloralin@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 4.98 1.33 80.7 161.7 40799 1.71 Pendimethalin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 5.91 1.45 74.9 111.5 21071 0.90 Pendimethalin@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 5.78 1.45 74.6 116.4 22244 0.92 Metribuzin@ 0.75 kg a.i. ha-1 4.29 0.98 90.1 190.2 51959 2.15 Metribuzin@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 4.30 1.16 87.1 185.4 49316 1.99 Diuron@ 1.0 kg a.i. ha-1 4.70 1.22 85.6 174.7 47517 2.12 Diuron@ 1.5 kg a.i. ha-1 4.92 1.23 84.4 166.4 43990 1.95 Farmer practice 4.96 1.25 84.4 172.4 43585 1.72 Weed free check 3.28 0.58 96.8 201.3 51520 1.78 Unweeded Check 9.05 2.04 0.00 78.0 9484 0.44 CD= 0.05 0.83 0.30 7.80 12.98 Channappa (2007), Dharwad, Karnataka Karnataka J Agric Sci 20: 715-18
  • 42.
    Table 20: Effectof different weed management methods on weed density, weed dry weight, tuber number and yield of potato crop (pool over two years) Treatment Weed count/ m2 Weed dry weight/m2 Tuber no. (‘000/ha) Tuber weight (q/ha) Weed index (%)30 DAP 80 DAP 30 DAP 80 DAP Mark- etable Total Mark- etable Total Control 366.6 429.0 6.0 45.3 434.6 559.3 334.2 348.7 15.3 Weed free - - - - 527.0 688.3 396.1 411.5 0 One Weeding + Earthing up 350.9 67.4 5.5 4.8 446.0 559.7 345.8 358.9 12.8 Prometryn 50 WP (1.0 kg/ha) 49.5 103.8 1.2 7.1 515.2 663.2 388.1 408.1 0.8 Prometryn 50 WP (1.5 kg/ha) 44.1 52.8 1.1 2.5 497.1 633.2 384.2 401.5 2.4 Pendimethalin 30 EC 37.6 71.1 1.0 5.8 476.9 598.2 379.5 393.9 4.3 CD (p=0.05) 86.6 30.7 2.3 5.8 34.7 78.7 47.4 38.0 - Kumar et al (2009), Modipuram (U.P.) Potato J 36(1-2): 72-74
  • 43.
    Farm implements andmachines Potato production made less labour intensive, increased economic viability and timely operations through development of various farm machinery/implements Manually/engine operated endless screen type potato grader Poato Harvester
  • 44.
    Conclusion Seed treatment withGA3 and Thiourea helps in breaking the dormancy Seed size of 30-40g gives higher yield of seed size tubers. 60 x 15 spacing is optimum for higher yield of seed size tubers and in economic terms as well. Haulm cutting at 80-90 DAP produces more no. of seed size tubers Application of FYM increase the seed tuber yield and total yield Drip irrigation improves the Water Use Efficiency. Fertilization through integrated nutrient management gives more returns per rupees invested. Chemical weed control helps in large scale seed production.
  • 45.