chapter–ii cultivation practices of guava...

CHAPTER–II CULTIVATION PRACTICES OF GUAVA AND THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE RESPONDENTS 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Developmental Initiatives 2.3 The National Scenario 2.4 The International Status of the Guava 2.5 The various Varieties of Guava Cultivation 2.6 The Importance and the Uses of the Guava 2.7 The Common Guava, Per 165 gram of its Individual Fruit Portion 2.8 The Health Benefits of Guava 2.9 The Package of Production Practices 2.10 The Important Guava Cultivars 2.11 The Requirements of Guava Cultivation 2.12 The Orchard Cultural Practices 2.13 The Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sample Respondents 2.14 The Guava Farming Practices

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

http://www.novapdf.com/


50 2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Guava, botanically known as Psidium guajava belonged to the family

of Myrtaceae. Guava was considered to be one of the most exquisite and

nutritionally valuable remunerative crop. Guava fruits were used for both eating

afresh and also for processing. As soon as, one got accustomed to its penetrating

aroma, it became the most delicious and the most fascinating fruit for consumers

and it also exceled most of the other fruit trees in respects of its productivity,

hardiness, adaptability and its Vitamin „C‟ contents. Besides its high nutritive

value, it yielded a heavy crop every year and it also gave handsome economic

returns involving very little inputs. This had prompted several Indian farmers to

take up Guava Cultivation on a commercial scale. Its cultivation was not seriously

affected by the extremes of temperature, hot winds, scanty rainfall, saline and poor

soil, water logging condition and above all, the non-availability of water,

fertilizers and such other inputs. Guava Trees were not difficult to grow and could

survive in a range of soil and climatic conditions. However, a precise management

was needed to produce a highly profitable crop.

The other allied species were Psidium cattleianum (cattely or Chinese or

strawberry Guava) which was the native product of Brazil. It‟s flesh was soft and

white towards the centre and contained numerous hard seeds. Psidium guineense

was a shrub or a small tree. The fruit was round and of greenish yellow in its




51 colour. Its flesh was whitish in colour containing numerous small seeds. The

flavour was sub acid and was not as musky as that of the common guava. Psidium

fried richsthalianum (Coosta Rican Guava) was a tall tree. The fruits of this

species were small and globose in its shape, having a high acid content. It is a wilt

resistant species, and was used as a wilt resistant rootstock in the different parts of

the world. Psidium montanum, was found on the mountains in Jamaica1.

In India, the Total area under Guava Cultivation was approximately 219.70

Thousand Hectares with an estimated annual production of 2,572 Lakh Tonnes.2 It

had been cultivated since a very long time and hence its origin had not yet been

traced. It was generally believed that it had originated in Central America or

Mexico and later had spread to the other parts of the world, both by Man and by

Nature. Even History had recorded that Seminole Indians had grown Guava in

Northern Florida in 18163.

In India, the Guava had been introduced by the Portugues in the early

Seventeenth century. However, there was no illustration of the Guava in the

accounts of either Garcia de Orta (1563) or Acosta (1573). But Guava had found

place in Blochmann‟s translation of Ain-i-Akbari (1590), wherein, he had

mentioned that Guava was served to Akbar, the great Mughal Emperor. Even

Benzoni, in the year 1550 had dealt with the peculiarities of Guava. Because of its

versatility and widespread use, the Guava had been appropriately called “the apple




52 of the tropics”. It was one of the most common and major fruits of India and was

considered as the fifth most important fruit in respect of its area and production

after mango, citrus, banana and apple. It had found favour with the fruit growers

due to its wide adaptability and its higher returns per unit area. Guava was a fruit

which was grown all over the country and also in kitchen gardening and near the

wells and tube wells‟ premises and also grown on a commercial scale. Guava is a

medium sized tree and was about thirty feet in its height.

Guava, the “poor man‟s fruit” or “apple of the tropics” was a popular tree

fruit of the tropical and subtropical climates and was native to the Tropical

America stretching from Mexico to Peru. It had been adopted in India so well that

it appeared to be an almost Indian fruit. The Guava was considered as one of the

exquisite, nutritionally valuable and a remunerative crop among the various fruit

crops. Guava fruits were used for both, fresh consumption as also for processing. .

Besides its high nutritive value, it yielded a heavy crop every year and gave good

economic returns involving very little inputs.

A study by the National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad had revealed

that fruits like Guava and apple were found to be rich in anti-oxidants, which were

intimately involved in the prevention of cellular damage which was the common

reason for cancer, ageing and for a variety of degenerative diseases. The study had

added that its findings would be an eye-opener for the people, as it was




53 generally believed that only expensive fruits were the richest sources of nutrition4.

The anti-oxidants available in the different fruits had been presented in the Table

2.1.

TABLE 2.1

Fruits of Life

Fruit Anti-oxidants Fruit Anti-oxidants

(Mg/100grams) (Mg/100grams)

Guava 496 Chiku (sapodilla) 55

Plum 330 Papaya 50

Custard Apple 202 Banana 30

Mango 170 Sweet lemon 26

Pomegranate 135 Orange 24

Apple 123 Watermelon 23

Grapes 85 Pineapple 22

Source: National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad.

As would be evident from the Table 2.1 Guava had the highest level of 496

mg/100 gram of the anti-oxidant property which had prompted several farmers to

take up to Guava Cultivation on a commercial scale. Certain important strategies

had also been identified for enhancing the quality of Guava production in order to

make it competitive in the World Market, which involved the adoption of the

modern, innovative and hi-tech methods. One such strategy was the High Density

Plantation (HDP). This included the adoption of an appropriate plant density,




54 canopy management, good quality planting material, and an efficient support and

management system with the appropriate inputs. In view of the popularity of the

high-density technology and its likely benefits, it had now become the right time

to encourage the adoption of this technology by the Guava growers. The

availability of institutional credit for the adoption of this technology would

definitely popularise it further among the horticulturists. Indeed, the credit inflow

into this sub sector was most likely to help the Guava growers in improving their

economic conditions faster.

2.2 THE DEVELOPMENTAL INITIATIVES

Before Independence, the Allahabad Amrood (Guava) was only variety in

use. During the First Half of the Nineteenth century, the Guava from Allahabad

and Banaras had earned a high reputation for their size and quality. During this

period, the names of the various varieties of Guava in this country had been

mainly derived from the places from where they had originated. In fact, the efforts

on the improvement in Guava by the selection process were initiated during the

year 1907. When India became Independent, much emphasis was given to

Research and Development which got incorporated in crop improvement activities

by the introduction and selection, by intervarietal hybridization, interspecific

hybridization, mutation, autopolyploidy, aneuploidy, inheritance, genetic

resources management, biotechnological approaches, Strategies for the improved




55 production system, integrated insect pest and disease management, product

diversification, marketing and trade and revitalizing the transfer of technology

system including the policy intervention issues. But a marked transformation and a

higher returns on the investments made was witnessed between the years 1990 and

2008, which had attracted the attention of all the stakeholders in Guava

Cultivation.

Further Technologies like wedge, grafting technique for rapid and mass

multiplication of saplings, high–density planting and meadow orcharding, plant

canopy architecture, the cropping patterns and the crop regulations, drip irrigation,

Fertilization, the use of mulching in relation to quality production, the integrated

insect pest and disease management, the post-harvest management including the

processing and strengthening of the marketing infrastructure and Trade had come

into prominence. The Government‟s role and its initiatives had also begun though,

of late only.

2.3 THE NATIONAL SCENARIO

Planned plantation in Guava had begun in 1991, with the adoption of the

New Economic Policy. A paradigm shift had been witnessed with the setting up of

the Database which was coincident with the setting up of the NHB. Formerly,

before Independence nearly 27 Thousand Hectares of land were under Guava

Cultivation. It went up to 42 Thousand Hectares in the year 1950-51.




56 Subsequently, the area under Guava Cultivation had gone up to 94 Thousand

Hectares in the year 1991. At present, approximately 219.70 Thousand Hectares of

land was under Guava Cultivation. The Guava Production and Productivity had

also changed in conformity with the change in the area under Cultivation. A

considerable change had taken place in respect of Guava Production and

Productivity since the year 1991.

In 1991-92 the Guava Production was found to be approximately 10.95

Lakh Tonnes, which was about 3.8 per cent of the total quantity of fruit

production. The Production of Guava went up to 16.32 Lakhs Tonnes in 2000-01;

to 19.7 Lakh Tonnes in 2007-08 and further to 25.71 Lakh Tonnes in 2009-10. In

1991-92 the Productivity was 11.7 Tonnes per Hectare which got reduced to 10.4

Tonnes per Hectare in 2006-07, but it again rose to the level of 11.7 Tonnes per

Hectare in the year 2009-10.

Uttar Pradesh had stood First in regard to the area under Guava Production.

Maharashtra had occupied the Second position and Bihar the Third position. In

Production, Uttar Pradesh had stood First. Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh had

occupied the Second and the Third positions. But in respect of Productivity

Madhya Pradesh and Punjab were in the First and the Second positions, Whereas

Karnataka had become the Third. The overall Productivity had been less than its




57 potential. The Area, Production and Productivity of Guava during 2009-10

classified according to the different states had been depicted in the Table 2.2.

TABLE 2.2

The Area, Production and Productivity of Guava (2009-10) Classified According to the Different States

State / UT Area Production Productivity

(‘000 ha) (‘000 tonnes) (tones / ha)

Bihar 29.2 231.5 7.9

Maharashtra 33.5 258 7.7

Uttar Pradesh 39.9 486.7 12.2

Karnataka 7.2 138.8 19.3

West Bengal 13.4 175.7 13.1

Punjab 8.0 169.3 21.2

Andhra Pradesh 10.1 150.8 15

Gujarat 9.8 156.6 15.9

Orissa 14.1 100.0 7.1

Tamil Nadu 10.0 92.5 13.2

Madhya Pradesh 8.2 238.5 29

Others 36.242 373.0 9.5

Total 219.7 2571.5 11.7

Sources: 1. Indian Horticulture Database 2009-10, National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

2. Hort Stat 2008, Director of Horticulture and Plantation Crops,

Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. pp.220-221.




58

In India, the Guava had well adapted itself to the various climatic

conditions and is grown in almost all the states. The major producing areas were

Uttar Pradesh (which is the highest producer) and Allahabad, Kausambi,

Farrukhabad, Kanpur, Unnao, Aligarh, Badaun, Varanasi, Fatehpur, Faizabad and

Lucknow. In Bihar, it was grown in Rohtas, East Champaran, West Champaran,

Muzzapherpur, Vaishali and Arania. In Jharkhand, it was grown mainly in Ranchi,

Lohardagga, Hazaribargh, Giridih, Gumla and Palamu. In Andhra Pradesh, it was

grown in East and West Godawari, Guntur, Krishna, Ananthapur, Medak and in

the Khemmam Districts. In Madhya Pradesh, the concentrated production of

Guava was around in Raipur, Durg and Jabalpur. In Rajasthan, it was grown

mainly in Udaipur Jhalwara, Khetari and Banwara. In Gujarat, it was most

concentrated in and around Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad. In Maharashtra, Ahmed

Nagar, Satara, Beed, Pune, Aurangabad and Amravati were the principal Guava

producing areas. In Karnataka, it was mainly grown in Bangalore, Kolar, Dharwad

and Shimoga. Though it had been successfully grown all over the country, the

most important Guava–growing States, as expressed in the Table 2.2 were Uttar

Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, West-Bengal and Orissa. Uttar Pradesh was by far

the most important Guava producing state in India and Allahabad had the

reputation of growing the best Guava in the country as well as in the whole world.

In Tamil Nadu, the major concentration of production had been around Madurai,




59 Dindigul and Salem. In Tamil Nadu the Area under Guava in 2009-10 had been

around 10 Thousand Hectares with a Total Production of about 92.5 Thousand

Tonnes5.

2.4 THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE GUAVA

At present, Guava had got well-established Markets in more than 60

countries of the world. It is cultivated in India, Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, Spain,

Portugal, Southern France, Israel, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Bolivia,

Malaysia, Kenya, USA (Hawaii, California and Florida), New Zealand,

Philippines, China, Indonesia, Cuba, Java, Venizuela, Pakistan, Australia and in

some of the African Countries. The major products of Guava were produced in

India, Brazil and Mexico6. The other leading countries which had produced

products made from Guava were South Africa, Jamaica, Kenya, Cuba and the

USA (Mainly Florida and Hawaii), Egypt, Thailand, Columbia, Pakistan and the

Philippines. The International Trade was virtually limited to the processed

products and include exports to the USA, Japan and Europe. The Guava fruit was

best to eat when it had perfectly riped and was freshly plucked from the trees. It

emitted a sweet aroma and was pleasantly sweet and refreshingly acidic in its

flavour. It is wholly edible along with its skin which is thin like paper which had

almost merged with its pulp. Ninety five per cent of the Guava fruits were




60 consumed either as fresh or as processed fruits. Only 0.05 per cent of the Produce

was being exported to the Foreign Countries.

2.5 THE VARIOUS VARIETIES OF GUAVA CULTIVATION

The nomenclature of cultivars of Guava grown in India had not yet been

well established. These had been named according to their shape, colour and the

smoothness of their skin or connected with the place of their Origin.

Improvements for the first time had been initiated in 1907 at Ganeshkhind Fruit

Experimental Station, Pune. One Strain from open pollinated seedling of the

Allahabad Safeda collected from Lucknow had been selected and released as

Lucknow–49 which became very popular and which had now been renamed as

Sardar. The important Guava varieties cultivated in the different States of India

had been presented in the Table 2.3.




61

TABLE 2.3 The Various Important Guava Varieties Cultivated in the Different States of India

State Varieties Grown

Allahabad Safeda, Lucknow 49, Anakapalli, Banarasi,

Andhra Pradesh Chittidar, Hafshi, Sardar, Smooth Green, Safed Jam,

Arka Mridula.

Madhya Pradesh L-49, Allahabad Safeda, Gwalior -27, Hafshi, Seedless

Chittidar.

Jharkhand L-49, Allahabad Safeda

Karnataka Allahabad Safeda, L-49, ArakaMridula, Araka Amulya,

Bangalore, Dharwar.

Assam Am Sophri, Madhuri Am Safvior Payere

Bihar Allahabad Safeda, Apple Colour, Chittidar, Hafshi,

Harijha, Sardar, Selection-8.

Maharashtra & Gujarat Nagpur Seedless, Dharwar, Dhollea, Kothrud, L-24,

Nasik, Sindh.

North-Eastern States Allahabad Safeda, Sardar, Red Fleshed

Tamil Nadu Anakapalli, Banarasi, Bangalore, Chittidar, Hafshi,

Nagpur Seedless, Smooth Green.

L-49, Allahabad Safeda, Lucknow Safeda, Apple Colour,

Uttar Pradesh Chittiar, Red Fleshed, Allahabad Surkha, Sardar,

Mirzapuri Seedless, CISH–G–1, CISH-G-2, CISH-G-3.

West Bengal L-49, Allahabad Safeda, Dudhe Khaja, Gole Khaja,

Kabli, Baruipur, Chittidar, Haijha, Sardar.

Source: Indian Horticulture Database 2009-10, National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.

In India, many introductions of Guava had been made from Hawaii, Brazil

and Thailand and they were being cultivated and used in the breeding programs




62 also. Similarly, the introduction of Indian cultivars like Allahabad Safeda and

Sardar had given excellent results in the other parts of the world also. However,

during the past few years, Lalit, a variety suitable for processing as well as for

table consumption purposes, had attained considerable popularity. The Area under

this variety had been steadily increasing, particularly in Maharashtra, Karnataka

and in Andhra Pradesh.

Apart from these prominent commercial cultivars, other cultivars grown in

the localized areas were Chittidar, Red Fleshed, Pear Shaped, Apple Coloured,

Anakapalli, Banarasi Surkha, Habsi, Sangam, Seedless, Dholka, Smidh, Karela,

Mirzapuri Seedling, Guineese, Nasik, Superior, Pourtgal, Spear Acid, Smooth

Green, Superior Sour Lucidium, White Fleshed, Behat Coconut, Smooth White,

Bangalore, White Supreme, Bhavnagar, Gwalior -27, Kafri (Pear Shape) Kafri

(Round Shape), Nagpur Seedless, Thailand Guava, Philippines Guava, Fevida

Seedling, Fan Relief, Strawberry Guava, Green Apple Guava, White Indian, Red

Indian and Ruby X.7

The most frequently encountered species, and the one simply referred to as

“the guava” was the Apple Guava (psidiumguajava). In most parts of Tamil Nadu,

Lucknow-49 was being cultivated, nowadays. The Genera Accara and Feijoa

(Acca, Pineapple Guava) were formerly included in Psidium.




63

Guava Trees had tough dark leaves that were opposite, simple, elliptic to

ovate and 5 to 15 Centimeter long. The Flowers were white, with five petals and

numerous stamens. In Dutch and German it was referred to as Guava, derived

from the French word Goyave. Outside Europe, the Arabic Jwafa, the Japanese

Guaba, the Tamil “Koiyaa” the Tongan Kuava had all been derived from the

Arabic term8.

Another term for Guavas was Pera or the variants thereof. It was grown

around the Western Indian Ocean and had been probably derived from Spanish or

Portuguese, which meant “Pear”, or from some language of South India, though it

had been so widespread in the region, that its origin could not be clearly traced any

more. Pera itself had been used in Malayalam, Sinhala and Swahili. In Marathi it

is known as Peru, in Bengal as Pearat and in Kannada it is known as Pearaley.

In the Amazon Rainforest areas, Guava fruits had been much enjoyed by

the birds and the monkeys which had dispersed Guava seeds in their droppings

and had caused spontaneous clumps of Guava trees to grow throughout the

rainforest areas. Guavas were cultivated in many tropical and subtropical countries

for their use as an edible fruit. Several Species had been grown commercially.

Apple Guavas were those which were most commonly traded internationally.

Guava fruit; usually 4 to 12 Centimeter long, were around or oval in their shape

depending upon the species. The outer skin might be rough, often with a bitter




64 taste or they were soft and sweet varying between the different species, and the

skin could be of any thickness and was usually green before maturity but became

yellow or green when they became ripe fruits9.

Guava pulp might be sweet or sour, off-white (“White” Guavas) to deep

pink (“red” Guavas) in their colour with the seeds in the central pulp with variable

numbers and hardness, depending upon their species.

2.6 THE IMPORTANCE AND THE USES OF THE GUAVA

Guava was a rich source of Vitamin C, Vitamin A, Vitamin B2, (riboflavin)

and Minerals like Calcium, Phosphorus and Iron. The Vitamin C contents of the

Guava fruit was four to five times higher than those of the citrus fruits. There were

other fruits also which contained Vitamin C, notably amla, citrus, mango and the

like. Except Guava no other fruit became available throughout the year10. Guava

Fruit is best when it became perfectly ripe and was plucked from the trees afresh.

It emitted a sweet aroma and was pleasantly sweet and refreshingly acidic in its

flavour. It was wholly edible along with its skin which paper was thin like and had

almost merged with the pulp. Guava was considered as one of the most delicious

and luscious fruits.

Guavas were often included in the category of super fruits, being rich in its

dietary Fibre, Vitamin A, Folic Acid and the Dietary Minerals of Potassium,

Copper and Manganese. However, the nutrient content had varied among the




65 various Guava varieties. Thai Maroon Guavas, a Red Coloured Apple Guava was

rich in carotenoids and polyphenols–the major classes of antioxidant pigments–

giving them relatively a very high potential antioxidant value among the various

plant foods–Green apple Guavas were less rich in their pigment antioxidants.

According to Bhagya and others many herbal remedies, indirectly or in

combination with different formulations such as leaf powder, pastes, decoctions

and infusions, pills and the like had been recommended in various medical

treatises against Diabetes. They had recommended the intake of the fresh juice of

Guava leaves to reduce the level of blood sugar11.




66 2.7 THE COMMON GUAVA, PER 165 Grams OF ITS INDIVIDUAL FRUIT PORTION

Calories 112

Moisture 133 Grams

Dietary Fiber 8.9 Grams (36%)

Protein 4.2 Grams (8%)

Fat 1.6 Grams (2%)

Ash 2.3 grams

Carbohydrates 23.6 Grams (8%)

Calcium 30 Milligrams (3%)

Phosphorus 66 Milligrams (7%)

Iron 0.4 Milligrams (2%)

Potassium 688 Grams (20%)

Copper 0.4 Milligrams (19%)

Beta – Carotene (Vitamin A) 1030 IU (21%)

Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) 377 Milligrams

Thiamin (Vitamin B1) 0.1 Milligrams (7%)

Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) 0.1 Milligrams (4%)

Niacin (Vitamin B3) 1.8 Milligrams (9%)

Folic acid 81 Milligrams (20%)

% Daily value in parentheses Nutrient data Source : US Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database from Nutrition

data.com 2.8 THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF GUAVA

Guava was a good source of fibres, minerals, antioxidants and Vitamins. It is effective in reducing the cholesterol and the blood-sugar levels because of its




67 potassium content and it combating cancer by strengthening the prostate gland. It

is effective in treating gastrointestinal problems and Diarrhea. The Guava

contained astringents that hardened the loose bowels. The astringents had

disinfectants and anti-bacterial properties. It strengthened the digestive system. It

was also a suitable fruit for curing cough and cold. It helped to fight gingivitis, a

gum disease, because of its rich concentration of folate. It helped to treat the

swollen gums, alleviated the tooth ache and prevented the oral cancer. The skin

contained high amounts of Vitamin C, and increased the immunity levels. Guava,

the poor man‟s apple had much greater health benefits than even apple. Since

human body was not capable of storing Vitamin C, in a small quantity, the Guava

should be taken daily for maintaining a proper health. The daily requirement of

Vitamin C for an adult was 50–70 Milligram which could be met by including one

or two Guava fruits in the daily diet of a person.

Guavas that were pink in colour had a more pigment content as polyphone,

carotenoid and pro-vitamin A, than the white pulped variant. In India the pink

Guava was primarily cultivated in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. This

Super Fruit was greatly recommended to deal with health problems such as high

blood pressure and cholesterol, in the treatment of constipation and in treating,

congested lungs. It was also believed to strengthen the heart and improve the

blood circulation12.




68

The worldwide Ethno Medical Uses of Guava had been shown in the Table 2.4.

TABLE 2.4

Worldwide Ethno Medical Uses of Guava Country Usage

Amazonia For diarrhea, dysentery, menstrual disorders, stomach ache, vertigo

Brazil For anorexia, cholera, diarrhea, digestive problems, dysentery, gastric insufficiency, inflamed mucous membranes, laryngitis, mouth(swelling), skin problems, sore throat, ulcers, vaginal discharges

Cuba For colds, dysentery, dyspepsia

Ghana Coughs, diarrhea, dysentery, toothache

Haiti For dysentery, diarrhea, epilepsy, itch, piles, scabies, skin sores, sore throat, stomach ache, wounds and as an antiseptic and as an astringent

India For anorexia, cerebral ailments, child birth, cholera, convulsions, epilepsy, nephritis, jaundice

Malaya For dermatitis, diarrhea, epilepsy, hysteria, menstrual disorders

Mexico For deafness, diarrhea, itches, scabies, stomach ache, swelling, ulcer, worms, wounds.

Peru For conjunctivitis, cough, diarrhea, digestive problems, dysentery, ezema, gout, haemorrhages, gastroenteritis, gastritis, lung problems, PMS, shock, vaginal discharges, vertigo, vomiting, worms

Philippines For sores, wounds and as an astringent

Trinidad For bacterial infections, blood cleansing, diarrhea and dysentery Source: Kamath J.V.Nair Rahul, Ashok Kumar, C.K., Mohana Lakshmi, S.,

Psidium Gujava L: A Review, International Journal of Green Pharmacy, 2(1): 9-12, 2008.

Guava plant had been extensively studied in terms of the pharmacological

activity of its major components and the results had indicated potent anti-diarrheal,

antihypertensive, hepatoprotective, antioxidant, antimicrobial, hypoglycemic and

anti-mutagenic activities. The pharmacological effects of Guava had been

presented in the Table 2.5.




69 TABLE 2.5

Pharmacological Effects of Guava13

Pharmacological Details

effects

Treatment of cough The water extract of plant in doses of 2 and 5 g/kg, p.o.

decreased the frequency of cough induced by capsaicin

aerosol by 35% and 54%, respectively, as compared to the

control, within 10 minutes after the injection of the extract,

(P<0.01).

Anti-Diabetic The ethanolic stem bark extract had exhibited statistically

activity significant hypoglycaemic activity in alloxan-induced

hyperglycaemic rats but was devoid of significant

hypoglycaemic effects in normal and normal glucose loaded

rats (OGTT); in both acute and sub-acute tests, of giving the

water extract, at an oral dose of 250 mg/kg. it had shown

statistically significant hypoglycemic activity.

Hepatoprotective P, guajava aqueous leaf extracts (250 and 500 mg/kg, po)

activity possessed good hepatoprotective activity.

Treatment of The active flavonoid compound, quercetin-3-0-alpha-I-

plaque arabinopyranoside (guaijaverin) isolated from

Psidiumguajava had demonstrated the high potential of the

antiplaque agent by inhibiting the growth of the Strep.

Mutans.

Antimutagenic The water extract of P. guajava was found to be effective in

activity inactivating the mutagenicity of direct-acting mutagens.

Inotropic effect The extract from P. guajava leaves depress myocardial

inotropism

Treatment of Psidiumguajava had shown a good curative effect on

infatilerotaviral infantile rotaviral enteritis

enteritis.

Anti-cancer activity Aqueous extract of psidiumguajava L. budding leaves had

been shown to possess anti-prostate cancer activity in a cell

line model. Treatment with Psidiumguajava L. budding

leaves (1.5 mg/mouse/day) had significantly diminished

both the prostate specific antigen (PSA) serum levels and

tumor size in a xenograft mouse tumor model. Guava leaf‟s

essence oil had been shown to possess a cytotoxic effect on

Human Cervical Cancer cell lines.




70

Immunomodulatory Extracts derived from Psidiumguajava had revealed activity immunomodulatory activities.

Treatment of acne Psidiumguajava leaf extracts had been used in the treatment

of acne.

Conjunctivitis Flowers had also been used as a poultice for conjunctivitis.

Rheumatism The pounded leaves in India had been used for controlling rheumatism.

2.9 THE PACKAGE OF PRODUCTION PRACTICES

A description of the different cultivars of Guava had been started with the

work of Firminger, as early as 1863, followed by Watt14 , Macmillan15 and

Popenoe16 . The nomenclature of the different cultivars (Clonal) of Guava grown

in India had not yet been established. Some were named according to their shape,

colour or the smoothness of their skin, while several others like Allahabad,

Banarasi, Harijha, Kerala, Baruipur and the like had been named after their place

of origin. In India, the Guava cultivars of Bombay had been described by Cheema

and Desmukh17 ,cultivars of Uttar Pradesh by Smith18 and the cultivars of Andhra

Pradesh by Ibrahim19 , those of Bihar by Roy and Ahmed20, those of Assam by

and those of Northern Madhya Pradesh by Tripathi and others .22

The Variations, in the plant growth, the yield and the physico-chemical

compositions among the different Guava cultivars had been reported by several

Researchers. Cheema and Deshmukh named them as cultivar „Sind‟, which

produced round or elliptic shaped fruits with soft white or reddish pulp; Cultivar

Dutta21




71 Lucknow, was a bushy tree and the fruits were round and were somewhat acidic in

their nature, and cultivar Nasik, the fruit of which was elliptical in its shape. It had

been recommended that L-49 (Luknow -49) Guava could be grown at high

altitudes of the Araku Valley.

Ahmed had reported that in Western Pakistan the most widely grown

cultivar Safeda had produced excellent fruits of a large size23. Sehgal and Singh

had reported that cultivar L-49 had produced fruits of excellent quality with a

larger fruit size, and the number of seeds per fruit was found to be lesser than that

of Chittidar and Safeda24. Due to its outstanding performance L-49 had been

recommended for growing in Punjab by Bakshi and Randhawa, although Safeda,

Chittidar and Seedless were also considered to be suitable25.

Safeda was clearly recognised by its whitish flesh colour and having a

greater and firmer pulp than others. The cultivars of Safeda and Chittidar had

shown some interesting features. Chittidar could easily be distinguished by the

presence of the red dots in its fruits. Safeda also had red dots often, though fewer

in its numbers, and they were globose in their shape and smaller in their size.

In Seedless, though the fruit was of good quality and had only a few seeds,

the bearing of fruits was very poor and of a small fruit size. It was, therefore, not

considered as a cultivar of commercial importance (Sehgal and Singh, 1965).

Singh and others had recommended that L-49 Guava had proved to be an ideal




72 variety in the Orchard, considering the average yield per tree, the fruit weight, the

sugar, the acidity and the Vitamin C contents of the fruit26. 2.10 THE IMPORTANT GUAVA CULTIVARS

The salient features of some important Guava Cultivars had been presented

in the section. Lucknow 49

Lucknow 49 was also known as Sardar, and its fruits were large, roundish

to ovate in their shape, their skin was primrose yellow in colour and their pulp was

white, and very sweet and tasty. The TSS and the Vitamin C contents were also

very high. The trees were vigorous in their growth. Allahabad Safeda

The most famous variety of Allahabad, was the Allahabad Safeda and it

had acquired large variations due to its seed propagation. The Fruits were large in

size, Round in Shape and their outer skin was smooth and yellowish white. It

could withstand drought conditions to a very great extent. Chittidar

The Chittidar variety was a very popular in western Uttar Pradesh. The

Fruits were characterized by their numerous red dots on their skin, their high

sweetness, and their small and soft seeds. It was otherwise similar to the

Allahabad safeda fruits in their size, shape and their pulp contents.




73 Harijha

Harijha was very popular in Bihar because of its profuse yield. The Trees

were of medium vigour due to their parse branching structure. The fruits were

round in their shape, medium large in their size and greenish yellow in their color.

The Flavor was sweet with a good keeping quality. Hafshi

Hafshi was a red-fleshed Guava having a good taste. It was mainly grown

in the Bihar State. The Fruit was moderately big, spherical in their shape and

possessed of a thin skin. The Trees were of medium vigour but were very

productive. Apple Guava

The Apple Guava fruits were medium sized and pink colored. They were

sweet in taste with a good keeping quality. They required a low temperature for

the development of their good pink color. Seedless

All the seedless varieties namely Saharanpur Seedless, Nagpur Seedless

and others were more or less of the same Type. Two types of fruits, the completely

seedless and the partly seeded, were grown as a seedless plant variety. The

completely seedless fruits developed on the shoots rising from the Stem and were

bigger in size and irregular in their shape.




74 Arka Mridula

Arka Mridula was a seedling of a selected variety of Allahabad Safeda. Its

medium sized fruits were of excellent quality with high TSS. The white pulp had

only very few soft seeds. The plants were of medium vigour but were high

yielding. Allahabad Surkha

Allahabad Surkha was an outstanding variety with large, uniform pink

fruits with a deep pink flesh. The plants produced upto 120 Kilograms Fruits in its

sixth year of fruiting. The Fruit was sweet, strongly flavoured with very few seeds

and was slightly depressed at both its ends. The plants were vigorous, dome

shaped and compact27.

New promising Cultivars

Lalit, a new variety of Guava had been released by the CISH, Lucknow, for

commercial cultivation. Its fruits were medium-sized (185 Kilograms) with an

attractive saffron-yellow colour with a red blush. Its flesh was firm and pink with

a good quantity of sugar and acid.

Pant Prabhat had been selected by the Department of Horticulture,

GBPU&T, Pantnagar (Uttranchal), for commercial cultivation28.




75 2.11 THE REQUIREMENTS OF GUAVA CULTIVATION

The requirements of Climate, Soil, Propagation, Fruit growth, Pests and

Diseases, Harvesting, Yield and Storage had been discussed in this section. 2.11.1 Soil and Climate Soil

The Guava Trees are very hardy and could thrive in all types of soil

conditions from alluvial to that of the lateritic, but they were sensitive to water

logging. It could, however, be grown on heavier but well-drained soil. The best

soils were deep, friable and well-drained ones. It could grow in a soil having a pH

of 6.5 to 8.5. As Guava was a surface rooted plant, the surface soil should be rich

in its fertility. Climate

Guava was successfully grown under Tropical and subtropical climatic

conditions. In areas having a distinct winter season, the yield tended to increase

and the quality also improved much. It could grow from sea level to an altitude of

about 5,000 Feet (1,515 Metre). It grows best when the annual rainfall was below

40 Inches (1,016 Millimetre) and was restricted between June and September.29

2.11.2 Propagation

Guava is propagated both by its seeds as also by the vegetative processes.

But vegetative propagation was followed for commercial propagation.30




76 2.11.3 Flowering and Fruiting

Guava Tree normally produced as many as Three crops in a year; which

was a unique phenomenon of the Tropical and sub-tropical regions because there

was more than one growing season during a year. In a mild climate, Guava could

flower and bear fruits throughout the year, provided water and temperature did not

become the limiting factors.

The blooming period had varied from 25 to 45 days depending upon the

cultivar, season and the region where it is grown. The initial fruit set in Guava was

quite high and approximately 80 per cent of the flowers became fruits. During

severe fruit drops only 34 to 56 per cent of the fruits reached maturity. The

formation of the fruit could first be noticed after 12 days from flowering. The

rainy season crop was harvested during August and the winter season crop during

January-February.

2.11.4 Planting Operation

The Field should be deeply ploughed and properly levelled before the

planting operations were begun. Guava could be planted in February-March or

August-September with earth balls or even bare rooted. In the later case, the plants

should be defoliated and the roots should be covered with some moist material.31




77 2.12 THE ORCHARD CULTURAL PRACTICES 2.12.1 Irrigation

The young Guava plants required irrigation at weekly intervals during the summer months and 2 to 3 irrigations during the winter months. To the Fruit

bearing trees, irrigation should be given for the flowering and for the better fruit-

setting at an interval of 2 to 3 weeks during the summer months and at monthly

intervals during the winter months. Irrigation was also essential to check the

excessive fruit drops during the summer months Irrigation during winter had also

been found to be effective. 2.12.2 Manuring and Fertilization

The requirement of Manure and Fertilizers to the Guava crop varied with the varieties, the age of the plants, and the fertility status of the soil, and climatic

conditions and the management practices adopted. The fruits of Guava were borne

on the basis of the current season‟s growth, and therefore, manures and fertilizers

encouraged the vegetative growth and the bearing of fruits. The Fertilization of the

Guava plants not only increased their yield but also improved the quality of the

Fruits.

The Doses of Manures and Fertilizers required for the Guava crop had been

shown in the Table 2.6.




78

TABLE 2.6 Doses of Manures and Fertilizers for the Guava Crop

Age of Tree Farmyard Superphosphate Muriate of Potash

manure Urea (G/plant)

(Years) (Kg/plant) (G/plant)

(Kg/Plant)

1–3 10–20 150–200 0.5–1.5 100–400

4–6 25–40 300–600 1.5–2.0 600–1000

7–10 40–50 750–1000 2.0–2.5 1100–1500

10 and 50 1000 2.5 1500

above

Source: Fruit growing by J.S.Bal

Farmyard manure should be applied in May. One half of the inorganic

fertilizer should be applied during the period May –June and the remaining half

during the period September-October.32 Zinc Deficiency

Zinc deficiency was a common problem in the growth of the Guava plants.

The affected plants produced small leaves with yellowing or chlorosis in between

the veins of the plants. The plant growth was suppressed and the branches dive

back. The zinc deficiency could be corrected by spraying the trees with the zinc

sulphate lime mixture (1 Kilogram of zinc sulphate + ½ Kilogram of unslaked

lime in 100 Litres of water). Two or three such sprays should be given at

fortnightly intervals to cure the Zinc deficiency in the plants.




79 2.12.3 Intercropping

The interspace between the plants could be economically utilized by suitable intercrops planted during the pre-bearing period in the Guava Orchards.

During initial 3 to 4 years, vegetables like brinjal, radish, carrot and okra could be

interplanted in the vacant spots of land. The leguminous crops like cowpea, grams,

beans and the like should be sown as safe intercrops. Intercropping should be

stopped when the trees attained the age of full growth. 2.12.4 Pests and Diseases Fruit Fly

During the Monsoon, the adult Flies lay eggs on the surface of the Fruit. On

hatching, the maggots entered into the fruits and in most cases the fruits dropped.

Spraying of malathion, demicron, and the like and the burning of the infected

fruits minimised the incidence. Diseases

Amongst the various diseases, the most damaging disease to Guava was the

wilt and anthracnose; and the other important diseases prevalent in certain regions

were the stem canker cercospora leaf spot, seedling blight and the like. Wilt

This fungal disease Wilt was known to occur in Uttar Pradesh, West

Bengal, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. According to Chattopadhyaya and




80 Bhattacharjee (1968) the disease in West Bengal was caused by Fusariumsolani

and Macrophominaphaseoli (M.Phaseolina), either alone or in a combination with

other diseases. In Uttar Pradesh the disease was earlier considered to have been

incited by the Fusarium spp. (Das Gupta and Rai, 1947) or Cephalosporiumspp. It

was characterized by the yellowing of the leaves followed by the drying of the

leaves and twigs from the tip and the complete wilting of the trees within 10 to 15

days. The disease occured more severely in the alkaline soils. Authracnose, Stem

Canker and Cercospora Leaf Spot were the other diseases which affected the

Guava plant.33

2.12.5 Harvesting and Post harvest Management

Guavas were harvested throughout the year (except during May and June) in one or the other Region of India. However, the peak harvesting periods in North

India were August for the rainy season crop, November-December for the winter

season crop and March-April for the spring season crop. In the mild climatic

conditions of the other parts of the country, the peak harvesting periods had not

been found to be so distinct.

Ripening of Guava started on the tree and continued even after the harvest

was made. It got accelerated during the rainy season due to the high temperature

and slowed down in the winter season due to the low temperature. The fruits were

packed in baskets made from locally available packaging material. For distant




81 markets, the wooden or corrugated fiberboard boxes were used along with good

cushioning materials such as paddy straw, dry grass, Guava leaves or rough paper.

Good ventilation was necessary to check the buildup of the heat. Guava was a

delicate fruit which required very careful handling while Harvesting and

Transporting. The fruits should reach the consumer in a fine condition.34

2.12.6 Storage and Ripening

Being highly perishable by its nature, the Guava fruits should be marketed

immediately after harvest. However, the Fruits could be stored for a few days, to

adjust to the market demand conditions. Chundawat and others (1976) had

reported that all the cultivars except the Allahabad Safeda could be stored for 2

days at the room temperature. The Safeda could be stored for 4 weeks in cold

storage at 47 to 57F (8.5-14C) (Singh and Mathur, 1954). Singh and others

(1976) had stored the Guava successfully upto 6 days in perforated polythene bags

and wooden boxes without rotting and without much weight loss.

At room temperatures, the fruits treated with aureofungin and ethylene

chlorohydrin plus calcium carbonate could be stored for a period of 5 days without

spoilage and up to 7 days with a 25 per cent spoilage only35.

2.13 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

SAMPLE RESPONDENTS

An understanding of the general characteristic features of the Sample Farmers was expected to provide a bird‟s eye view of the general features




82 prevailing in the Study Area. Therefore an attempt had been made in the Study to

analyse some of the important characteristics of the sample farmers. For purposes

of Analysis, the Farmers had been divided in to Two categories, namely, Marginal

Farmers and Small Farmers, Though there were many socio-economic factors, the

present study had confined itself to factors like Age, Educational Qualifications,

Family size, Marital Status, Community, Experience of the Cultivators in Farming

as well as in Guava Cultivation, the Place of Residence, Income levels, Sources of

Irrigation and Sources of Knowledge about the Prices of Guava. 2.13.1 Age

Age was considered to be one of the key factors influencing the adoption of technologies and of the risk taking behaviour. The distribution of the Sample

Farmers classified according to the different age groups had been given in the

Table 2.7.




83 TABLE 2.7

Age-wise Distribution of Sample Respondents

Types of Farmers Total Number of

Age (in years)

Marginal

Small Sample Farmers

Below 30 17 46 63

(8.1) (24.2) (15.7)

30–40 63 69 132

(30) (36.3) (33)

41–50 89 38 127

(42.4) (20) (31.8)

Above 50 41 37 78

(19.5) (19.5) (19.5)

Total Number of 210 190 400

Sample Farmers (100) (100) (100)

Source: Primary Data. Figures in parentheses denote percentages to Total.

It could be seen from Table 2.7 that 33 per cent of the Sample Farmers

were in the age group of 30 to 40 years while 31.8 per cent were in the age group

of 41 to 50 years. The age group of 41 to 50 years was found to be relatively

higher in the case of the Marginal Farmers (42.4%) followed by the Small Farmers

(20.0%). The Young farmers (below 30 years) had accounted for 15.7 per cent of

the Total Number of sample farmers. Those above 50 years formed only 19.5 per

cent of the Total Number of 400 Sample Farmers.




84 2.13.2 Marital Status

The Marital Status of the Sample Farmers had been included as one of the

social variables in the present study. It might lead to the necessity of rewards and

recognition. In general, the need and commitment of the Married Persons were

supposed to be greater than the unmarried persons. In the present study, the

Marital Status of the Respondents had been categorized as „married‟ and

„unmarried‟. The widowed, divorced or the separated status had not been studied

as it was thought that it was not necessary for the Present Study. The Marital

Status among the Sample Farmers had been shown in the Table 2.8.

TABLE 2.8

Marital Status of the Sample Respondents

Types of Farmers Total Number of

Marital status

Marginal


Married 210 180 390

(100) (94.7) (97.5)

Unmarried 0 10 10

(5.3) (2.5)




It would be evident from Table 2.8 that out of the 400 sample farmers, a majority of 390 (97.5%) sample farmers were married individuals followed by 10




85 who were unmarried and they had accounted for only 2.5 per cent of the Total

Number of Sample Farmers. Of the 400 sample farmers, among the respondents

who had been categorized as Marginal Farmers, the dominant category consisted

of married persons numbering 210 which was the same as the Total Number of

Sample Marginal Farmers. In the case of the respondents who fell under the

category of Small Farmers, 180 were married constituting 94.7 per cent of the

Total Number of 190 Small Farmer Respondents.

2.13.3 Community

The classification of Respondents based on the communities to which they

belonged had been shown in the Table 2.9.

TABLE 2.9

Sample Respondents Classified According to Categories of Communities

Category Types of Farmers Total Number of

Sample Farmers

Marginal Small

BC 10 10 20

(4.8) (5.3) (5)

MBC 160 170 330

(76.2) (89.5) (82.5)

SC/ST 40 10 50

(19.0) (5.3) (12.5)







86

It would be evident from the Table 2.9 that of the 400 Respondents, a

majority of 330 (82.5%) Respondents had belonged to the Most Backward

Community, followed by 50 (12.5%) and 20(5%) of the Respondents belonging to

Scheduled class and Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Communities

respectively.

2.13.4 Literacy Levels

The Literacy Levels of the Respondents had represented the levels of

Formal Education, the Respondents had. Since the level of education was one of

the important factors that determined the level of understanding, tolerance,

scientific approach, the risk taking ability and the innovative capacity of the

Respondents, this feature had been included in the present study. The Levels of

Education had been classified into Five categories, namely illiterates, upto

Elementary School Level, upto High School Level, upto Higher Secondary School

Level and the Under Graduation Level. The level of Education among the

Respondents had been presented in the Table 2.10.




87 TABLE 2.10

Literacy Levels of Sample Respondents

Types of farmers Total Number of

Literacy level

Marginal


Illiterate 20 20 40

(9.5) (10.5) (10.0)

Upto Elementary 100 80 180

School Level (47.6) (42.1) (45.0)

Upto High School 70 70 140

Level (33.3) (36.8) (35.0)

Upto Higher 10 10 20

Secondary School (4.8) (5.3) (5.0)

Upto Under 10 10 20

Graduation Level (4.8) (5.3) (5.0)



Source: Primary Data. Figures in parentheses denote percentages to Totals.

Table 2.10 had revealed that 180 Respondents (45.0%) of the Sample

Farmers had been educated upto the Elementary School Level followed by 140

Respondents who had studied upto the High School Level (35.0%) and 40

Respondents (10%) were with Under Graduate and upto Higher Secondary levels

of Education. The maximum percentage (10.5%) of illiterates was found among

the Small Farmers followed by the Marginal Farmers, among whom 9.5 per cent

of the Farmers were found to be Illiterates.




88 2.13.5 Family Size

The Family Size was the most important factor in determining the

requirements of family labour in the farming operations. The Family Size of the

Farmers included the Total Number of family members in the present setup,

irrespective of the fact as to whether they were in the joint or the nuclear family

patterns. The Family Size of the Marginal and the Small farmers had been given in

the Table 2.11.

TABLE 2.11

Family size of Sample Respondents

Family size Types of farmers Total Number of

(Number of

Marginal Small Sample Farmers

Members)

Below 3 10 10 20

(4.8) (5.3) (5.0)

3 to 5 20 20 40

(9.5) (10.5) (10.0)

5 to 7 150 80 230

(71.4) (42.1) (57.5)

Above 7 Members 30 80 110

(14.3) (42.1) (27.5)







89

It could be found from Table 2.11 that 57.5 per cent of the Sample Farmers

in the study area had a family size of 5 to 7 Members followed by 20 (5.0%), 40

(10%) and 110 (27.5%) of the Respondents respectively belonging to below 4,

between 3 to 5 and above 7 members categories of families respectively. The

major dominant family category in the case of Marginal Farmers consisted of 5 to

7 Members only 150 which had constituted 71.4 per cent of Total Number of

Sample Marginal Farmers. But it was above 7 Members in the case of Small

Farmers. In the case of small farmers, the use of family labour had been more

when compared to the large farmers. Between the two types of farmers with

different levels of land holdings, the Marginal Farmers had constituted by 10

(4.8%), 20 (9.5%), 150 (71.4%) and 30 (14.3%) of the Sample Respondents

respectively. 2.13.6 Place of Residence

The domicile of the Respondents had a great influence on the socio

economic conditions as well as on their standard of living. It had also determined

the economic status of the Sample Farmers. Though the Farmers had hailed from

the different localities, they had been categorized into the rural and the semi-urban

categories only. Table 2.12 had depicted the Place of Residence of the Sample

Respondents.




90 TABLE 2.12

Place of Residence of the Sample Respondents


Place of Residence

Marginal


Rural 210 180 390

(100) (94.7) (97.5)

Semi-urban 0 10 10

(5.3) (2.5)




Table 2.12 had revealed that a majority of 390 (97.5%) out of the Total

Number of 400 Sample Farmers had belonged to the rural area type of location,

followed by 10 (2.5%) who had belonged to the semi-urban area type of location.

Among the Small Farmers who had belonged to the urban area type of location,

the dominant category had constituted 5.3 per cent to its total number of Urban

Located Farmers. With regard to the Marginal Farmers who had belonged to the

rural area type of location, the dominant category had constituted 100 per cent of

the total number of the rural type of location. It could also be inferreed that the

dominant sample farmers had belonged to the rural area type of location.




91 2.13.7 Income Levels

The Income levels of the Growers were a highly flexible one. It depended

upon many factors, such as Natural Calamities and the Technology used in the

Production and in the Marketing of the Products. For the purpose of this study the

Growers had been classified according to their Income Levels. Table 2.13 had

given the Distribution of the Sample Growers according to their various Income

Levels.

TABLE 2.13

Distribution of the Sample Growers According to Various Income Levels

Income levels (in Types of farmers Total Number of

Rupees per Month) Marginal Small Sample Farmers

Upto ` 5000 60 10 70

(28.6) (5.3) (17.5)

` 5000 to ` 10000 80 150 230

(38.1) (78.9) (57.5)

` 10000 to ` 20000 70 20 90

(33.3) (10.5) (22.5)

Above ` 20000 0 10 10

(5.3) (2.5)







92

Out of the 400 Sample Respondents, 70 (17.5%) Sample Growers had

belonged to the monthly income category of upto ` 5,000; 230 (57.5%) Sample

Growers had belonged to the monthly income category of ` 5,000 to ` 10,000; 90

(22.5%) of the Sample Growers had belonged to the ` 10,000 to ` 20,000 income

level and 10 (2.5%) of the Sample Growers had belonged to the above ` 20,000

income level Category of the Farmers. From the Table 2.13 it could be inferred

that a majority of 230 (57.5%) of Sample Growers had belonged to the monthly

income level of category of ` 5,000 to ` 10,000.

2.14 THE GUAVA FARMING PRACTICES

This part of the study had covered the important Guava farming practices

such as the Years of Experience in Farming, the Experience in Guava Cultivation,

the Sources of irrigation, the Diseases in Guava Cultivation, the Technological

Assistance got from the Horticulture Department, the Adequacy of Technological

Assistance, the Crop Insurance, the Reasons for not availing Crop Insurance and

Information Related to the Price Hike.

2.14.1 Years of Experience in Farming

The Experience in Farming was an important factor influencing the

adoption of new and varied technologies for improving the productivity of the

crops. Hence the farming experience of the Sample Farmers had been studied and

the details had been presented in the Table 2.14.




93

TABLE 2.14 Years of Experience in Farming

Experience Types of farmers Total Number of

(In years) Marginal Small Sample Farmers

4 to 5 Years 120 60 180

(57.1) (31.6) (45.0)

Above 5 Years 90 130 220

(42.9) (68.4) (55.0)




It could be observed from the Table 2.14 that a majority of 220 out of 400

Sample Farmers (55 per cent of the sample farmers) had an experience of above 5

years in farming followed by 180 (45%) of the farmers with an experience of 4 to

5 years. It could also be seen from the Table 2.14 that the experience of above 5

years was found to be relatively higher in the case of Small Farmers with 130 of

them (68.4%) followed by Marginal Farmers who formed 90 of them (42.9%).

2.14.2 Experience in Guava Cultivation

Experience in Guava Cultivation is an important factor influencing skill development in its cultivation. The experience of the Sample Farmers in raising

Guava is furnished in the Table 2.15.




94

TABLE 2.15 Years of Experience in Guava Cultivation

Experience Types of farmers Total Number of

(in years) Marginal Small Sample Farmers

Upto 2 Years 70 40 110

(33.3) (21.1) (27.5)

3 to 4 Years 130 70 200

(61.9) (36.8) (50.0)

Above 5 Years 10 80 90

(4.8) (42.1) (22.5)




It could be seen from Table 2.15 that 50 per cent of the sample farmers or

200 out of 400 of them had 3 to 4 years of Experience in the Cultivation of Guava

followed by 110 or 27.5 per cent of the farmers with an experience of up to 2 years

and 22.5 per cent or 90 of the farmers had an Experience of above 5 years. It could

also be seen from the Table 2.15 that the above 5 years of experience Category of

Farmers was found to be relatively higher in case of Marginal Farmers (42.1%) as

compared to the Small Farmers (4.8%).




95 2.14.3 Sources of Irrigation

Irrigation was an important factor that determined the Productivity of

Guava cultivars. There were many sources of irrigation and it had differed from

product to product and from area to area. In the Study Area the Guava cultivars

had depended on well irrigation only. 2.14.4 Diseases in Guava

The wide range of climatic conditions and the environmental situation in

which Guava was grown had indicated the nature and the diversity of the

associated diseases attacking Guava. Guava was subject to different Types of

diseases at different stages of its growth. Table 2.16 had presented the details of

the diseases that usually crippled the Guava Cultivation.

TABLE 2.16 Major Diseases that had Attacked Guava Cultivation

Type of diseases Types of farmers Total Number of

Sample Farmers

Marginal Small

Insect pest 30 0 30

(14.3) (7.5)

Grey leaf spot 150 180 330

(71.4) (94.7) (82.5)

Anthracnose 30 10 40

(14.3) (5.3) (10.0)







96

Table 2.16 had shown that out of 210 Marginal Farmers, 30 (14.3%) of the

Farmers had stated that the Guava plants in their farms had been affected greatly

by „Insect Pest‟ followed by 150 (71.4 %) of the farmers who had to attack the

disease of „Grey Leaf Spot‟ and 30 (14.3 %) of the farmers had reported about the

problem of „Anthracnose‟ In the case of Small Farmers, out of 190 farmers,

180(94.7%) of the farmers had to face the attack of „Grey Leaf Spot‟ followed by

10(5.3%) of the farmers who had to face the „Anthracnose‟ disease. On the whole

330(82.5%) of the 400 Sample Farmers had reported that the „Grey Leaf Spot‟

disease was their most serious problem.

2.14.5 Technological Assistance from the Horticultural Department

The Government of Tamil Nadu had provided extensive assistance to the

Fruit Growing Farmers through its Horticultural Department. Hence an attempt

had been made to study about this fact and the results had been presented in the

Table 2.17.




97

TABLE 2.17 Technological Assistance from the Horticultural Department

Opinions of the Types of farmers Total Number of

Sample Farmers Marginal Small Sample Farmers

Adequate 40 0 40

(19.0) (0) (10.0)

Inadequate 170 190 360

(81.0) (100.0) (90.0)




Table 2.17 had given the information that out of the 400 Sample Farmers,

40(10%) of the Sample Farmers had availed of the technological assistance

provided by the Horticultural Department, and had considered them as adequate

whereas 360 (90%) of the farmers had not availed of the assistance. The Study had

also indicated that 170 out of the 210 (81per cent) of the marginal farmers and all

the 190 Sample Small Farmers considered in the study had considered the

technological assistance provided as inadequate. 2.14.6 Adequacy of Technological Assistance

Out of the Total Number of 400 Sample Respondents as many as 360 of the

Respondents 90 per cent had expressed the opinion that the Assistance provided

by the Horticultural Department was inadequate. The Responses got from the




98 Sample Farmers regarding the support expected from the Government had been

Tabulated and shown in the Table 2.18.

TABLE 2.18 Support Expected from the Government

Support expected Types of farmers Total Number of

from the Government Marginal Small Sample Farmers

Monetary subsidies 94 80 174

(53.4) (43.5) (48.3)

Preventive measures 53 46 99

for diseases (30.1) (25.0) (27.5)

Pricing subsidies 0 9 9

(4.9) (2.5)

Giving guidance 29 49 78

(16.5) (26.6) (21.7)




It could be observed from the Table 2.18 that 94 (53.4%) and 80 (43.5%) of

the marginal and the small farmers respectively had reported that they expected

„monetary subsidies‟ from the Government. „Preventive measures for the diseases‟

was the expectation of 53 (30.1%) and 46 (25%) of the marginal and the small

farmers respectively. Nine (4.9%) of the Sample Small Farmers had stated that they

expected „Pricing subsidies‟ from the Government and 29 (16.5%) and 49




99 (26.6 %) the Marginal and the Small Farmers respectively had reported that they

expected the government to provide guidance in improving their cultivation

practices. Forty (40) of the Sample Guava Farmers had not expected any support

from the Government and hence they had not reported anything about Government

Support.

2.147 Crop Insurance

Pest attacks, floods, gusty winds, tornados and incessant rains could bring

about a destruction of the Guava Farms. These calamities could cause extensive

damages to the Guava Farmers. These risks could be protected and safeguarded by

taking recourse to crop insurance. Generally, the farmers were encouraged to take

crop insurance. However, the analysis made in the present study had revealed that

none of the sample respondents had availed of the crop insurance facility.

2.14.8 Reasons for not availing the facility of Crop Insurance

An attempt was made to know about the reasons for not availing the crop

insurance facility by the Sample Farmers and the results had been presented in the

Table 2.19.




100

TABLE 2.19 Reasons for Not Availing Crop Insurance


Reason

Marginal Small Sample Farmers

No knowledge about 70 60 130

Insurance: (33.3) (31.6) (32.5)

High premiums: 5 5 10

(2.4) (2.6) (2.5)

No need for 5 5 10

insurance: (2.4) (2.6) (2.5)

Procedural delays: 10 50 60

(4.8) (26.3) (15.0)

Not available in the 120 70 190

local area: (57.1) (36.8) (47.5)



Source: Primary Data. Figures in parentheses denote Percentages to Totals.

Table 2.19 had revealed that out of the 210 Sample Marginal Farmers, 70

(33.3%) of the farmers had stated that, they had no knowledge about Insurance;

5(2.4%) of the farmers had stated that the „high premium‟ was the reason; five

(2.4%), of the farmers had stated that there was no need for insurance; 10 (4.8%)

of the Sample Farmers had stated that the „procedural delay‟ was the reason and

120 (57.1%) of the Sample Farmers had stated that crop insurance facility was „Not available in the local area‟, and that was the reason for not availing the crop




101 insurance facility. In the case of the small farmers, out of 190 farmers, 60 (31.6%)

had „no knowledge about insurance‟; five (2.6%) of the farmers had stated „high

premium‟ was the reason; and another five (2.6%) had felt that was „no need for

insurance‟. For fifty (26.3%) of the Sample Farmers „procedural delay‟ and for 70

(36.8%) of the Farmers „not available in local area‟ were the reasons for their not

availing of the crop insurance facility for their farms. 2.14.9 Information Regarding Prices

On an enquiry about the sources of their getting information about the price increases only 350 of the Respondents had responded. It was found that they had

obtained information about the prices from various sources which had included the

commission agents, the village merchants and Friends and Relatives. The various

sources of getting information regarding the Prices of Guava had been depicted in

the Table 2.20.




102

TABLE 2.20 Sources of Getting Information Regarding the Prices

Source of Types of farmers Total Number of

information Marginal Small Farmers

Commission Agents 100 70 170

(52.6) (43.8) (48.6)

Village merchants 90 80 170

(47.4) (50.0) (48.6)

Friends and 0 10 10

Relatives (0) (6.3) (2.9)




It would be clear from the Table 2.20 that 48.6 per cent or 170 of the Guava

growers out of the 350 Farmers who had Reported had collected information on

the prices from the commission agents and another 170 (48.6) of them from the

village merchants. Only Ten growers (2.9%) had collected the information on

prices from their Relatives and Friends. Among the Small Farmers, 6.3 per cent or

Ten of them had got the information about the prices from their Relatives and

Friends.




chapter–ii cultivation practices of guava...

Documents