increasing sweetpotato diversity in central luzon through sustainable use
DESCRIPTION
Report on the project to increase sweetpotato diversity in Central Luzon, Philippines by introducing and evaluating on-station sweetpotato varieties and by identifying suitable varieties and channeling these varieties for subsequent multiplication by planting material producers.TRANSCRIPT
5/20/2010
1
Introduction
• Sweetpotato - 7th most important food crop
• China -world‟s leading producer with a
production of 100,214.09 metric tons (FAO
2005)
• Philippines - 13th among the sweetpotato-
producing countries , 6th in Asia, with a total
production of 574.61 metric tons (FAO
2005)
5/20/2010
2
Sweetpotato- the vine of life
• all plant parts can be
utilized for food and feeds
• Leaves – vegetables and soilage
• Roots – staple
• -vegetable, snack, beverage, chips,
bakery products, pastries, candies, feeds
Sweetpotato-
an economic crop
• important cash crop in Central Luzon
• post-rice crop in Tarlac
• wet-season crop in upland areas of Bataan
and some parts of Zambales
• Local and domestic markets
5/20/2010
3
Sweetpotato production
BAS 2004• national average - 4.54 ton/ha
• Central Luzon- 3.89 tons/ ha
Central Luzon
• Production - 30,684 mt (7th)
• Area - 7893 hectares
Sweetpotato - native to
South America• introduced to the Philippines in the 16th century
• SP diversity exists in the country
– 2004 – 1586 accessions
– 2007 - 1122
• SP diversity due to
– natural and human selection
– Mutation
– recombination
– Introduction
5/20/2010
4
Conservation of
Sweetpotato Diversity
– Ex situ In situ
• Field genebank * home garden
• I n vitro * on-farm
Mandated Institutions for SP conservation
• PhilRoots- Phil Rootcrops Research and Training Center,
Visayas State University
• NPRCRTC- Northern Phil Rootcrops Research and
Training Center, Benguet State University
• NPGRL- National Plant Genetic Resources Laboratory.
IPB, CSC
SP Diversity in Central
Luzon
• SP varieties in Central Luzon,
– 1912- 1995 = 24
• Assessment of SP diversity in Central
Luzon
• 1995 - 5 varieties
• 2005 - 4 varieties
5/20/2010
5
Varieties 1995 2005
Super
Bureau
60-80 90
Taiwan 20-40
Ube 10-20
Bureau 5
Bentong
Percentage area planted to sweetpotato varieties
in Central Luzon
1990- wipe-out of Bureau in farmers‟ fields due to
SpFMV
10
Super Bureau – infected with „kulot‟ or SpFMV
5/20/2010
6
Mitigate loss of diversity
• Introduce additional Sp diversity
• Consider farmers‟ criteria of desired Sp
varieties
Selection criteria Farmers’ preference
Farmers’ reasons
Vine length Medium Lower cost in clearing at harvest
Root shape round, uniform easier packing and bagging
skin color Reddish to purple
marketability
Root size medium Marketability
flesh color light Consumer’s preference
Farmers’ selection criteria for sweetpotato in Central Luzon
5/20/2010
7
• In Central Luzon, production is
associated to marketability
• sweetpotato varieties acceptable to the
market are conserved
Objectives
General
• To increase sweetpotato diversity in Central Luzon
through use
Specific
• To evaluate the introduced sweetpotato varieties
on-station by various users
• To test adaptation of selected varieties in farmers‟
fields (on-farm evaluation)
• To identify suitable varieties and channel selected
varieties for adaptability and subsequent
multiplication by planting material producers in
Bataan
5/20/2010
8
METHODOLOGY
On-farm trials
Selected varieties
On-station trial
Introduction of varieties from
various sources
Flowchart of Activities
•Field trial
•Sensory evaluation
Sp planting materials producers
•Adaptation trial
•multiplication
FFD
FFD Participatory varietal
selection
5/20/2010
9
Introduction of varieties
• Matching farmers‟ criteria with existing Sp
collection
• October, 2005 - inventory of existing
sweetpotato varieties in LSU and BSU
• identified 18 potential varieties for
introduction
On-Station Trials
• Department of Agriculture-Central Luzon Integrated
Area Research Center for Lowland Development
(DA-CLIARCLD)
Number of varieties
• 1st batch= 13 + local checks, Taiwan and Super
Bureau
• 2nd batch =5 + Super Bureau
Dry season- December 2005
RCBD, 2 replications
• 4-row plot (2m x 6m)
• 12 cuttings/row
• Cultural management- Farmers’ practice
5/20/2010
10
Evaluation of varieties on-
station
Sensory evaluation
• Texture, taste, flesh color, aroma
Field Performance
• Vine length, root size, root shape, skin
color, flesh color
VARIETY
KATANGIAN
LAGO NG
LANGGOK
HUGIS
NG
LAMAN
LAKI
NG
LAMAN
KULAY
NG
BALAT
KULAY
NG
LAMAN
A1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
B 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
C 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
D 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
E 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
F 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
G 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
SWEETPOTATO EVALUATION SHEETROOTS
Pangalan: _______________________________
Trader _____ Grower _____ Processor _____ Agri Technician _____
Others _____
SCORE: 1 = Pinakatangap
5 = Hindi tanggap
5/20/2010
11
Criteria•diversity of ecology • market integration
Gerona -traditional growing area Pura -non-traditional/non-commercial growing area,Moncada - lahar and commercial areaBamban- upland and rolling landscape
Selection of sites for on-farm trials
TARLAC
Moncada
PuraGerona
Bamban
5/20/2010
12
Selected varieties
On-farm trials
4 sites, 2 farmers per set
Selected varieties, on –station trials
Sp planting materials producers
FFD
Pura Bamban
Gerona Moncada
Bataan
Tarlac
O
N
-
F
A
R
M
RESULTS
5/20/2010
13
UPLB (1st batch) VSU (2nd batch)
PSBSp 21 UPLSp 5PSBSp 18 UPLSp 11PSBSp 22 UPLSp 2PSBSp 14 PSBSp 29UPLSp 3 PSBSp 17PSBSP 23 NSICSp 28UPLS p1
NSICSp 25VSP 2VSP 3PSBSp 15NSICSp 26
List of introduced varieties.
Sensory evaluation
5/20/2010
14
Sensory evaluation of 13 introduced SP varieties
VarietiesSensory Attributes
Preference Ranked Scores
Over-all Acceptability*
* (%)
Acceptability Rating Scores Characteristics***
Aroma Color Taste Texture
Super Bureau -0.1821bcd 78.6ab 5.93a 5.86abc 5.57abcd 5.93a
Taiwan -0.3643d 42.9b 5.50a 5.86abc 4.77de 4.54b
UPLSp 5 -0.2429bcd 42.9b 5.21a 5.29bcd 4.93cde 5.29ab
PSBSp 18 0.2429abc 85.7a 5.57a 5.64abcd 5.64abcd 5.93a
UPLSp 11 0.000abcd 85.7a 5.50a 5.07cd 5.64abcd 5.64ab
PSBSp 22 0.0607abcd 78.6ab 5.71a 5.36bcd 5.71cde 5.46ab
UPLSp 2 0.3036ab 85.7a 5.45a 5.31bcd 6.15abc 5.92a
PSBSp 21 -0.1821bcd 64.3ab 5.79a 5.57abcd 5.36bcde 5.57ab
PSBSp 14 -0.1214bcd 84.3ab 5.57 a 5.71abcd 4.79de 5.50ab
NSICSp 29 -0.3036cd 50.0ab 5.14 a 4.71d 4.21e 4.57b
UPLSp 3 -0.2429bcd 57.1ab 5.86 a 5.21abcd 5.43abcd 5.50ab
PSBSp 17 0.4857a 85.7a 6.00 a 6.29ab 6.64a 6.14a
PSBSp 23 0.1821abcd 78.6ab 5.14 a 5.57abcd 5.86abcd 5.64b
UPLSp 1 0.2429abc 85.7a 6.08 a 5.69abcd 5.85abcd 6.00a
NSICSp 25 0.1214abcd 85.7a 5.21 a 6.57a 6.21ab 6.14a
F-value 0.017 0.042 0.425 0.027 0.000 0.028
On –station
evaluation of
introduced varieties
5/20/2010
15
Half of the plot
harvested
• Marketable and
non-marketable
roots classified
Each variety
was coded
5/20/2010
16
Farmers‟ on–station evaluation results
Variety VegetativeGrowth
Root shape
Flesh color
Skin color
Root size Mean scores
Taiwan 2.56 2.56 2.19 2.48 2.29 2.42PSBSp 21 2.38 2.56 2.72# 3.12# 2.29 2.62UPLSp 5 2.97 3.21# 2.73# 3.33# 3.35# 3.12#
PSBSp 18 2.48 2.42 2.38 2.58 2.33 2.44
UPLSp 11 1.62* 1.55* 1.53* 1.59* 1.57* 1.57*PSBSp 22 2.47 3.09# 2.47 2.94 3.09# 2.81#
UPLSp 2 2.70 3.24# 2.76# 3.06# 2.79# 2.91#
PSBSp 14 2.53 2.79 2.21 2.84 2.44 2.56PSBSp 29 2.76 4.03# 3.38# 3.79# 4.15# 3.62#
UPLSp 3 2.85 3.44# 2.68 3.12# 2.97# 3.01#
PSBSp 17 2.74 2.88 2.42 2.91 2.71# 2.73#
PSBSP 23 2.03* 1.71* 1.79 1.74* 2.09 1.87*NSICSp 28 3.18# 3.82# 3.47# 3.48# 3.64# 3.52#
UPLSp 1 3.41# 3.44# 3.03# 3.24# 3.29# 3.28#
F-value 6.19 24.36 9.21 15.11 21.82 60.85CV 39.49 30.44 41.32 33.89 30.24 35.67
* Means significantly higher than the local check variety, Taiwan# Means significantly lower than the local check, variety, Taiwan
Vegetative growth, root shape, flesh color, skin color and root size of 1st batch of SP varieties and Taiwan
5/20/2010
17
Variety VegetativeGrowth
Root shape Flesh color
Skin color Root size Mean scores
Super Bureau 2.33 1.94 1.93 1.90 2.06 2.03
PSBSp 21 2.38 2.56 2.72 3.12# 2.29 2.62UPLSp 5 2.97# 3.21# 2.73 3.33# 3.35# 3.12#
PSBSp 18 2.48 2.42 2.38 2.58 2.33 2.44UPLSp 11 1.62* 1.55* 1.53* 1.59* 1.57* 1.57*PSBSp 22 2.47 3.09# 2.47 2.94# 3.09# 2.81UPLSp 2 2.70 3.24 2.76# 3.06# 2.79 2.91#
PSBSp 14 2.53 2.79 2.21 2.84 2.44 2.56PSBSp 29 2.76 4.03# 3.38# 3.79# 4.15# 3.62#
UPLSp 3 2.85# 3.44 2.68 3.12# 2.97# 3.01#
PSBSp 17 2.74 2.88 2.42 2.91 2.71 2.73PSBSp 23 2.03 1.71* 1.79* 1.74* 2.09 1.87*NSICSp 28 3.18# 3.82# 3.47# 3.48# 3.64# 3.52#
UPLSp 1 3.41# 3.44# 3.03# 3.24# 3.29# 3.28#
F-value 6.19 24.36 9.21 15.11 21.82 60.85CV 39.49 30.44 41.32 33.89 30.24 35.67
* Means significantly higher than the local check variety, Super Bureau# Means significantly lower than the local check, variety, Super Bureau
Vegetative growth, root shape, flesh color, skin color and root size of 1st batch of SP varieties and Super Bureau
Variety Vegetative growth
Root shape
Root size
Skin color
Flesh color
Mean Ranking
PSBSp 15 2.78 2.43 2.71 2.57 2.71 2.64 3
NSICSp 26 2.77 2.63 2.88 2.75 2.71 2.75 4
NSICSp 25 3.77 2.13 2.00 2.63 2.25 2.56 2
VSP 3 2.25 2.38 3.00 2.38 2.25 2.45 1
VSP 2 *
Super Bureau
*
* no evaluation due to poor growth and heavy SpFMV infestation
Vegetative growth, root shape, root size, skin color and flesh color of 2nd
batch of SP varieties
5/20/2010
18
VSP3 PSBSp 15
NSIC 25
PSBSp 23
Super Bureau UPLSp 17 UPLSp 11
Selected
varieties
and Super
Bureau
On-farm trials
Field lay-out
LOA
5/20/2010
19
5/20/2010
20
On-farm Trials
Selected varietiesSet 1
Set 2
• 3 selected varieties + Super Bureau
• planted by 2 farmers per site
Sites: Pura, Moncada, Bamban, Gerona
Each set
Farmers‟ management practices
Soil sampling and analysis
Lay -out
5/20/2010
21
Distribution of cuttings
Monitoring
5/20/2010
22
Harvesting
Classification of roots
5/20/2010
23
On-farm evaluation
5/20/2010
24
Variety
SITESAcross
location mean
Rank per set
Pura Gerona Moncada Bamban
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
Set 1
NSICSp 25
4.18-9.77 6.97
5.18-9.33 7.26
7.85-8.45
8.15 3.75-7.18 5.46 6.96 4
PSBSp 152.56-2.62 4.60
7.82-11.32 9.57
4.54-12.64
8.59 6.25-12.27 9.26 8.01 2*
PSBSp 170.92-7.55 4.24
6.13-8.17 7.15
15.02-16.02
15.52 8.38-16.55 12.46 9.84 1
Super Bureau (check)
0.23-3.56 1.90
6.78-7.71 7.24
17.65 17.65 3.06-3.75 3.41 7.55 3
Yield (tons/ha) of Set 1 varieties in four towns
5/20/2010
25
Variety
SITESAcross
location mean
Rank per set
Pura Gerona Moncada Bamban
Range Mean Range MeanRange Mean
Range Mean
Set 2
VSP 31.03-3.84 2.44
5.21-6.75 5.98
5.57-7.34
6.40.18 0.18 3.77 4
PSBSp 237.82-8.92 8.37
7.29-19.08 13.18
10.40-13.61
12.012.64 2.64 9.05 2
UPLSp 118.42-16.06 12.24
7.86-9.79 8.82
8.54-21.11
14.826.11 6.11 10.50 1
Super Bureau (check)
2.47-3.96 3.22
8.22-15.28 11.75
14.4-20.97
17.731.11 1.11 8.45 3
Yield (tons/ha) of Set 2 varieties in four towns
On-farm trials
4 varieties selected
1. PSPSp 17
2. NSIC 25
3. PSBSp 23
4. PSBSp 11
Planting
Material
producers
5/20/2010
26
Planting material supply
system
• Differences in agroecology of Bataan and
Tarlac
• Planting
– Bataan -May to July
– Tarlac - September to December
• Harvesting
– harvest time in Bataan coincides with the
preparation of planting materials in Tarlac
• Purchased cuttings are multiplied –‟palakay‟,
to satisfy the required cuttings
UPLSp11
5/20/2010
27
Summary
• Four varieties were selected from on-farm
trials: PSBSp 15 and PSBSp 17, UPLSp
11 and PSBSp 23 based on across
locations performance
• UPLSp 11 - most preferred, similar to
Super Bureau
• NSICSp 25, -preferred for its deep purple
flesh
• PSBSp 17 and PSBSp 23 - selected for
their taste and yellow flesh color
Summary
• Four varieties were selected from on-farm
trials: PSBSp 15 and PSBSp 17, UPLSp
11 and PSBSp 23 based on across
locations performance
• UPLSp 11 - most preferred, similar to
Super Bureau
• NSICSp 25, -preferred for its deep purple
flesh
• PSBSp 17 and PSBSp 23 - selected for
their taste and yellow flesh color
5/20/2010
28
Summary
• Selected varieties are channelled to PM
producers in Bataan, PSBSp 15 replaced by
NSIC 25
Conclusion
• Farmers evaluate new varieties at various
growth stages, able to identify a variety for
specific use
• Selection and preference of SP varieties
are dictated by the consumers demand in
the local and domestic markets
• Eating quality is also a major
consideration in the continuous cultivation
of SP varieties
5/20/2010
29
Conclusion
• The selection and preference for specific
varieties in each location indicate different
varieties may be maintained/conserved on-
farm in the different sites
• The increasing demand for planting materials
for UPLSp 11, UPLSp 23, NSIC 25 and
UPLSp 17 indicates that farmers will adopt
and conserve them on-farm
• Although the selected varieties have similar
characteristics with existing varieties, each
has a distinct character thereby increasing
diversity in SP
Conclusion
• SP breeders should consider the desired characteristics for incorporation in the varietal development programs
• In turn, performance of promising lines in farmers‟ fields can provide additional information for variety recommendation
5/20/2010
30
Recommendations
• Need for capacity building among farmers
on nutrient and pest management
• Farmers‟ participation in varietal
development should be pursued
• Establish partnership between the formal
and informal planting material supply
system to facilitate access to SP
germplasm
• Strengthen the existing plant material
supply system
Recommendations
• Establish a mechanism for “health-
regulated access system” or access to
virus-free planting materials to mitigate loss
of germplasm on-farm.
• SP germplasm in farmers‟ fields and home
gardens should be collected and conserved
for future use
5/20/2010
31
Research Team
UPLB
THBorromeo
MLHVillavicencio
DA-CLIARCLD
Irene Adion
Lorna Rubion
UPWARD-CIP
HdR de Chavez
LGU- Tarlac
Pura
Bamban
Gerona
Moncada
Bagac, Bataan
Farmer-Cooperators
5/20/2010
32
Let‟s grow and
utilize sweetpotato
to be part of its
conservation!!!
Thank you