INTRODUCTION

Potato is designated as “Food for Future” by FAO because of its high productivity and nutritive value. Potato has been historically the most important vegetable and continues to receive the same status as on date. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) possesses all the virtues to be a potential food crop. It produces substantially more edible energy, protein and dry matter per unit area and time than many other crops. Potato is now the world’s third most important food crop in terms of human consumption, after wheat and rice. Potato tubers constitute a highly nutritious, wholesome food. Potato plays a very important role in Indian agriculture as it alone contributes about 21% of the area 26% of production under vegetable crops in India. Potatoes are a good source of energy, minerals, proteins, fats and vitamins (Ekin, 2011,Drewnowski and Rehm, 2013, King and Slavin, 2013). FAO declared potato as the crop to address future global food security and poverty alleviation during 2008. Potato is currently grown on an estimated 20 mha of farmland globally, and the potato production worldwide stands for 366 mt(Anonymous, 2020).  India produced 48.6 mt of potato and ranked second in the world, only after China(99.2 mt). The productivity in India is higher than in China and Russia, the third largest potato producer (Anonymous, 2008).

Potato is a food security crop in the current global food system (Devauxetal., 2021, Haverkort and Struik,2015).Sustainable potato production and efficient use of resources will require adjustments and redesigns of the current cropping and processing systems (Andrivon, 2017). Potato is a profitable enterprise in spite of high capital requirement (Verma and Rajput, 2002). Cultivation of high yielding variety is more profitable for potato growers (Singh and Kishore, 1997).  Unless prices are fixed above production costs, it may not be possible to meaningfully improve potato production (Naik and Patnaik, 1986).

Potato is a high yield potential and nutritionally superior crop(Kochetal., 2020). It could help in banishing hunger, malnutrition, more specifically in the developing and under developed countries. Its cultivation is one of the alternatives for the diversification of agriculture and development of agro-processing industries. Potato plays a significant role in the agriculture economy (Sinha and Singh, 2019).  In Arunachal Pradesh, Potato is one of the important vegetable crops covering an area of 6200 ha. with a production of 44950 mt (2019‒20). In East Siang district, it occupies an area of 790 ha with 16.28 per cent of state production (2018‒19). 

Sustainable agri-food system includes productivity, agricultural income, human wellbeing and environmental sustainability (Smith et al., 2017, Wu et al., 2018). Adoption of new production technology with sustained resources utilization can help farmers in minimizing the cost of production of potato. The value chain fragmentation, price volatility, quality and quantity losses and low levels of processing that characterize the market for horticultural crops in India (Gulati et. al., 2022). New paradigm and challenges are needed for potato growers of Arunachal Pradesh in solving the problems like recurrent price fluctuation, high marketing, storage and transportation cost, non-availability of adequate storage facilities, post-harvest losses and lack of competitive marketing system. In keeping with the preferences of consumers, a greater variety of appealing potato products have been developed, including potato steamed bread, potato noodles and flour (Su and Wang, 2019). Keeping the view of importance of State’s economy, this effort has been made for which the main objectives of the study are profitability, resource use efficiency and marketing of potato in East Siang Districts of Arunachal Pradesh.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was undertaken with a sample of 90 potato growers comprising 40 small (<2 ha), 30 medium (2−4 ha) and 20 large (>4 ha) farmers from twelve villages of three CD blocks namely, Paighat, Mebo, and Ruksin of East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh, India through stratified random sampling method. Besides, 12 traders and 18 retailers in Pasighat market were also randomly chosen. Data pertaining to the agricultural year 2019−20 was considered with specific objectives. On the basis of the different cost concepts of CACP, Govt. of India (Cost A₁, Cost A₂, Cost B₁, Cost B₂, Cost C₁, Cost C₂,Cost C₂ and  Cost C₃), the cost of cultivation has been estimated. The net returns over different cost concepts have been estimated as the difference between the gross return and particular cost. The benefit-cost ratios over different cost concepts were calculated by dividing the gross return by a particular cost., Simple percentage, average, percentage of multiple responses for constraints faced by potato growers and appropriate formulae as per methodology was used to analyze the collected primary data.

2.1.  Cost concepts

To work out the costs and returns of potato production, cost concept recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) was used viz., Cost A₁, Cost A₂, Cost B₁, Cost B₂, Cost C₁, Cost C₂ and Cost C₃wasused.

Cost A₁ :Value of hired human labour+Attached labour, Value of owned and hired bullock labour+charges on owned and hired machinery+Value of seed (both farm produced and purchased)+Value of owned and purchased manures+value of fertilizers+value of plant protection chemicals used+ depreciations+ repairs and maintenance of farm machinery and farm implements and farm buildings+land revenue, cesses+interest on working capital.

Cost A₂ :Cost A₁+Rent paid on leased in land.

Cost B₁ : Cost A₂+Imputed interest on owned fixed capital excluding land.

Cost B₂  :Cost B₁+Rental value of owned land (less land revenue) and Rent paid for leased in land.

Cost C₁ :Cost B₁+Imputed value of family labour

Cost C₂ :Cost B₂+Imputed value of family labour

Cost C₃ :Cost C₂+10 % of Cost C₂ as management of cost

2.2.  Cobb-Douglas production function

Based on the significance of the results, the Cobb-Douglas production function was used as the better fit over linear form to find out the resource use efficiency of each variable input in potato production process:

Y=aπx^bie^ui………………(1)

Where, Y=Yield of potato in quintals ha^-1

a=intercept

Π=multiplication symbol

X₁=Hired human labour in man days ha^-1

X₂=Seed in ` ha^-1

X₃=Fertilizers in ` ha^-1

X₄=Plant protection measures in ` ha^-1

X₅=Irrigation in ` ha^-1               

u=Error term or disturbance term

b_i=Regression coefficient of the i^th variable

e=Napier base i.e. 2.718

On the basis of marginal value productivity (MVP), the resource use efficiency was judged. It is imperative to study efficient resource allocation in agricultural production from the viewpoint of the national use of scarce resources and maximization of farm income. The MVP of the i^th input was worked out by using the following formula:

MVP=b_i (Y-/X-_i)P_y…………….(2)

Where, Y=Geometric mean of yield of potato ha^-1

X_i=Geometric mean level of i^th resources

b_i=Production elasticity of i^th input

P_y=Price of the product

2.3.  Marketing costs

These include all the marketing charges from local assembling to retailing in the marketing process. Marketing costs limit the income of the farmers, affect the cost of living of consumers and define the margins and profits of the marketing agencies.

The total cost incurred on marketing either in cash or in kind by the producer, seller and by the various intermediaries involved in the sale and purchase of the commodity reaches the ultimate consumer.

C=CF++CM₁+CM₂+CM₃+…..++CM_n

Where, C = Total cost of marketing of commodity

CF=Cost paid by the producer

CM_i=Cost incurred by the ith middleman in the process of buying and selling the product.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1.  Cost of cultivation of potato

The total cost of cultivation (C₃) was highest on large farms (Table 1). It was due to use of more inputs and higher expenses on labour, seed material, fertilizer and plant protection measures by contract potato cultivations. The total cost of cultivation on small, medium and large farms were Rs. 41604, Rs. 44150 and Rs. 44608 ha^-1 respectively. Potato cultivation is highly labour intensive, as human labour contributes about 30%. The gross return varied between Rs. 179914 ha^-1 on large farms and Rs. 117927 ha^-1 on small farms (Table 2).  The productivity and average price received by large farmers were also the highest. The net return in potato cultivation over Cost C₂ was Rs. 32432 and Rs. 28499 over Cost C₃. The benefit cost ratio varied between 3.16−5.63, while it was 3.57−5.35 on overall farm category wise estimation.

Table 1: Farm category-wise cost of cultivation of potato in East Siang District of Arunachal Pradesh (` ha-1)

Table 2: Farm category-wise estimation of net return and benefit-cost ratio of potato

3.2.  Resource  use  efficiency

It was observed that on all categories of farm sizes the ratios of MVP to MFC were greater than one for human labour showing significant under-utilization of this resource and possibility of additional use to achieve the optimal level (Table 3). This indicates that by spending an extra rupee on human labour the farmer, on average, will be able to generate additional returns worth ` 2.46. In the case of medium farms, the MVP:MFC ratio for fertilizer use was less than unity implying its uneconomic use. The ratios were negative for seed and plant protection on large farms suggesting curtailing their excessive use. Over all, the uses of variable inputs were being expanded to generate higher level of returns. 

3.2.  Resource  use  efficiency

It was observed that on all categories of farm sizes the ratios of MVP to MFC were greater than one for human labour showing significant under-utilization of this resource and possibility of additional use to achieve the optimal level (Table 3). This indicates that by spending an extra rupee on human labour the farmer, on average, will be able to generate additional returns worth ` 2.46. In the case of medium farms, the MVP:MFC ratio for fertilizer use was less than unity implying its uneconomic use. The ratios were negative for seed and plant protection on large farms suggesting curtailing their excessive use. Over all, the uses of variable inputs were being expanded to generate higher level of returns.

Table 3: The MVP and MFC of important inputs for potato cultivation of sample farms in East Siang District

3.3.  Marketing of potato

About 35% of produce was directly sold to the retailer by potato growers. The small farmers sold about 6% of potato to the processor directly (Table 4). The processing units used to make papad, chips, flakes and potato floor etc. in small units for local consumption. The disposal of potato through wholesalers were accounted for about 75, 57, 45% of production on small, medium and large farms in the marketing channel of Producer-Processor-Wholesaler- Retailer – Consumer.  

The price received by the farmer was the highest ` 2.54 kg<sup>-1</sup> when potato was directly sold to consumer and the lowest ` 1.50 kg^-1 for the sale through retailer. The marketing cost incurred by sample potato growers for the sale through wholesaler, processor, consumer and retailer were ` 0.88, ` 0.82, ` 0.40 and ` 0.08 kg^-1 respectively. However, the net price received by the sample farmer was highest when directly sold to consumers (` 2.14 kg^-1).

3.3.  Marketing of potato

About 35% of produce was directly sold to the retailer by potato growers. The small farmers sold about 6% of potato to the processor directly (Table 4). The processing units used to make papad, chips, flakes and potato floor etc. in small units for local consumption. The disposal of potato through wholesalers were accounted for about 75, 57, 45% of production on small, medium and large farms in the marketing channel of Producer-Processor-Wholesaler- Retailer – Consumer.

The price received by the farmer was the highest ` 2.54 kg<sup>-1</sup> when potato was directly sold to consumer and the lowest ` 1.50 kg^-1 for the sale through retailer. The marketing cost incurred by sample potato growers for the sale through wholesaler, processor, consumer and retailer were ` 0.88, ` 0.82, ` 0.40 and ` 0.08 kg^-1 respectively. However, the net price received by the sample farmer was highest when directly sold to consumers (` 2.14 kg^-1).

Table 4: Disposal trend and prices of Potato in different categories of sample farms in East Siang District

3.4.  Constraints in production and marketing

About 85% of the farmers were facing the problem of infestation of potato crop by Epilachna beetle and Late Blight diseases (Phytophthora infestance). About 60% of potato growers even complained about the high cost of inputs. Overall, about 42% of the farmers were concerned with the poor quality of pesticides and facing the scarcity of labour force during peak period of potato production (<10%). Lack of sufficient number of cold storage capacity in that area compelled the farmers to sell their produce soon after harvest. Low price in the wholesale market, seasonal fluctuation in prices due to irregular supply were unique feature of marketing problem faced by potato growers of the study area (Table 5). Usually, efficient marketing provides higher return to producer and greater satisfaction to the consumer by way of reduction in marketing cost. Farmers experience very difficulties to dispose their produce at remunerative price during the glut situation in the market. High transportation, grading, bagging and storage costs in the retailer market created major marketing problems. Hence, they could sell only small amount of production to retailers. It was observed that large potato growing farmers were more reluctant for direct sale to the consumer due to lack of labour and longer period of requirement for marketing of their produce as compared to medium and small farmers. 

Table 5: Production and marketing constraints faced by sample potato growers in East Siang District (% Multiple response)

CONCLUSION

The productivity and average price received by large farmers were highest in all categories of farm sizes. The net price received by the sample farmer was highest when directly sold to consumers. Potato production and marketing can be improved by providing adequate short-term credit facilities through PACS, constructing the cold storage units in rural areas, formation of FPOs and by improving the market intelligence services. Potato growers should be educated and encouraged for contract farming in order to hedge risk.

Reference

Andrivon, D., 2017.  Potato facing global challenges: How, how much, how well? European Potato Journal 60(3–4), 389–400. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-018-9386-z.

Anonymous, 2018. Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Available athttp://agri.arunachal.gov.in/crop.php#111. Accessed on 20^th March 2022.

Anonymous, 2008. FAO. Available at http://www.fao.org/potato-2008/en/potato/factsheets.html. Accessed on 15^th March, 2022.

Anonymous, 2020. FAOSTAT Database. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed on 5^th June, 2022.

Devaux, A., Goffart, J.P., Kromann, P., 2021. The potato of the future: opportunities and challenges in sustainable agri-food systems. Potato Research 64, 681–720. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-021-09501-4.

Drewnowski, A., Rehm, C.D., 2013.  Vegetable cost metrics show that potatoes and beans provide most nutrients per penny. PLoS One 8(5), e63277. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063277.

Ekin, Z., 2011. Some analytical quality characteristics for evaluating the utilization and consumption of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers. African Journal of Biotechnology 10, 6001–6010.

Gulati, A., Wardhan, H., Sharma, P., 2022. Tomato, onion and potato (TOP) value chains. In: Gulati, A., Ganguly, K., Wardhan, H. (Eds.). Agricultural Value Chains in India: Ensuring Competitiveness, Inclusiveness, Sustainability, Scalability, and Improved Finance (ISBE series). Springer, Singapore, 33–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4268-2_3.

Haverkort, A.J., Struik, P.C., 2015. Yield levels of potato crops: Recent achievements and future prospects. Field Crops Research 182, 76–85.

King, J.C., Slavin, J.L., 2013. White potatoes, human health, and dietary guidance. Advances in Nutrition 4(3), 393S–401S. DOI https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.003525.

Koch, M., Naumann, M., Pawelzik, E., Gransee, A.,Thiel, H., 2020. The importance of nutrient management for potato production part I: Plant nutrition and yield. Potato Research 63, 97–119. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-019-09431-2.

Naik, D., Pattanaik, S.C., 1986. An evaluation of price policy of potato in Orissa. Agricultural Situation in India 41(8), 623–628.

Singh, T.R., Kishore, R., 1997. Production performance of potato in district Farrukhabad (Uttar Pradesh). Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(3), 635.

Sinha, A.K., Singh, S.K., 2019. Economics of potato production in northern hills of Chhattisgarh. Economic Affairs 64(1), 1–7.

Smith, A., Snapp, S., Chikowoa, R., Thorne, P., Bekunda, B., Gloverd, J., 2017. Measuring sustainable intensification in smallholder agroecosystems: a review. Global Food Security 12, 127–138.

Su, W., Wang, J., 2019. Potato and food security in China. American Journal of Potato Research 96, 100–101.

Verma, A.R., Rajput, A.M., 2002. Economics of production and marketing of potato in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing 14(2), 23–30.

Wu, W., Yu, Q., You, L., Chen, K., Tang, H., Liu, J., 2018.  Global cropping intensity gaps: Increasing food production without cropland expansion. Land Use Policy 76(C), 515–525.