You are on page 1of 32

5/20/2010

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 sweetpotatoproducing countries , 6th in Asia, with a total production of 574.61 metric tons (FAO 2005)

1

5/20/2010

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

Sweetpotatoan 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

2

5/20/2010

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

3

5/20/2010

Conservation of Sweetpotato Diversity
– Ex situ • Field genebank • I n vitro In situ * home garden * 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

4

5/20/2010

Percentage area planted to sweetpotato varieties in Central Luzon

Varieties Super Bureau Taiwan Ube Bureau Bentong

1995 60-80 20-40 10-20 5 90

2005

10

1990- wipe-out of Bureau in farmers‟ fields due to SpFMV

Super Bureau – infected with „kulot‟ or SpFMV

5

5/20/2010

Mitigate loss of diversity
• Introduce additional Sp diversity • Consider farmers‟ criteria of desired Sp varieties

Farmers’ selection criteria for sweetpotato in Central Luzon Selection criteria Farmers’ preference Medium Farmers’ reasons

Vine length Root shape skin color Root size flesh color

Lower cost in clearing at harvest round, uniform easier packing and bagging Reddish to purple medium light marketability Marketability Consumer’s preference

6

5/20/2010

• 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

7

5/20/2010

METHODOLOGY

Flowchart of Activities
Introduction of varieties from various sources
•Field trial •Sensory evaluation

On-station trial
FFD

Selected varieties On-farm trials
FFD

Participatory varietal selection

•Adaptation trial •multiplication

Sp planting materials producers

8

5/20/2010

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

9

5/20/2010

Evaluation of varieties onstation
Sensory evaluation
• Texture, taste, flesh color, aroma

Field Performance
• Vine length, root size, root shape, skin color, flesh color

SWEETPOTATO EVALUATION SHEET
ROOTS

Pangalan: _______________________________ Trader _____ Grower _____ Processor _____ Others _____ SCORE: 1 = Pinakatangap 5 = Hindi tanggap

Agri Technician _____

VARIETY

LAGO NG LANGGOK

KATANGIAN HUGIS LAKI KULAY KULAY NG NG NG NG LAMAN LAMAN BALAT LAMAN

A B

1

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

C

1

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

D

1

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

E

1

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

F

1

2 3 4 5 1

2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

G

1

2 3 4 5 1

2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

10

5/20/2010

Selection of sites for on-farm trials

Criteria •diversity of ecology • market integration
Gerona -traditional growing area Pura -non-traditional/non-commercial growing area, Moncada - lahar and commercial area Bamban- upland and rolling landscape

TARLAC

Moncada

Gerona

Pura

Bamban

11

5/20/2010

Selected varieties, on –station trials

O N F A R M
Pura

On-farm trials 4 sites, 2 farmers per set
Bamban Gerona Moncada Tarlac

FFD

Selected varieties

Sp planting materials producers

Bataan

RESULTS

12

5/20/2010

List of introduced varieties. UPLB (1st batch) VSU (2nd batch) PSBSp 21 PSBSp 18 PSBSp 22 PSBSp 14 UPLSp 3 PSBSP 23 UPLS p1 UPLSp 5 UPLSp 11 UPLSp 2 PSBSp 29 PSBSp 17 NSICSp 28 NSICSp 25 VSP 2 VSP 3 PSBSp 15 NSICSp 26

Sensory evaluation

13

5/20/2010

Sensory evaluation of 13 introduced SP varieties
Varieties Preference Ranked Scores -0.1821bcd -0.3643d -0.2429bcd 0.2429abc 0.000abcd 0.0607abcd 0.3036ab -0.1821bcd -0.1214bcd -0.3036cd -0.2429bcd 0.4857a 0.1821abcd 0.2429abc 0.1214abcd 0.017 Sensory Attributes Over-all Acceptability Rating Scores Acceptability* Characteristics*** * (%) Aroma Color Taste Texture 78.6ab 42.9b 42.9b 85.7a 85.7a 78.6ab 85.7a 64.3ab 84.3ab 50.0ab 57.1ab 85.7a 78.6ab 85.7a 85.7a 0.042 5.93a 5.50a 5.21a 5.57a 5.50a 5.71a 5.45a 5.79a 5.57 a 5.14 a 5.86 a 6.00 a 5.14 a 6.08 a 5.21 a 0.425 5.86abc 5.86abc 5.29bcd 5.64abcd 5.07cd 5.36bcd 5.31bcd 5.57abcd 5.71abcd 4.71d 5.21abcd 6.29ab 5.57abcd 5.69abcd 6.57a 0.027 5.57abcd 4.77de 4.93cde 5.64abcd 5.64abcd 5.71cde 6.15abc 5.36bcde 4.79de 4.21e 5.43abcd 6.64a 5.86abcd 5.85abcd 6.21ab 0.000 5.93a 4.54b 5.29ab 5.93a 5.64ab 5.46ab 5.92a 5.57ab 5.50ab 4.57b 5.50ab 6.14a 5.64b 6.00a 6.14a 0.028

Super Bureau Taiwan UPLSp 5 PSBSp 18 UPLSp 11 PSBSp 22 UPLSp 2 PSBSp 21 PSBSp 14 NSICSp 29 UPLSp 3 PSBSp 17 PSBSp 23 UPLSp 1 NSICSp 25 F-value

On –station evaluation of introduced varieties

14

5/20/2010

Each variety was coded Half of the plot harvested

• Marketable and non-marketable roots classified

15

5/20/2010

Farmers‟ on–station evaluation results

Vegetative growth, root shape, flesh color, skin color and root size of 1 st batch of SP varieties and Taiwan Variety Taiwan PSBSp 21 UPLSp 5 PSBSp 18 UPLSp 11 PSBSp 22 UPLSp 2 PSBSp 14 PSBSp 29 UPLSp 3 PSBSp 17 PSBSP 23 NSICSp 28 UPLSp 1 F-value CV Vegetative Growth 2.56 2.38 2.97 2.48 1.62* 2.47 2.70 2.53 2.76 2.85 2.74 2.03* 3.18# 3.41# 6.19 39.49 Root shape 2.56 2.56 3.21# 2.42 1.55* 3.09# 3.24# 2.79 4.03# 3.44# 2.88 1.71* 3.82# 3.44# 24.36 30.44 Flesh color 2.19 2.72# 2.73# 2.38 1.53* 2.47 2.76# 2.21 3.38# 2.68 2.42 1.79 3.47# 3.03# 9.21 41.32 Skin Root size color 2.48 2.29 3.12# 2.29 3.33# 3.35# 2.58 2.33 1.59* 1.57* 2.94 3.09# 3.06# 2.79# 2.84 2.44 3.79# 4.15# 3.12# 2.97# 2.91 2.71# 1.74* 2.09 3.48# 3.64# 3.24# 3.29# 15.11 21.82 33.89 30.24 Mean scores 2.42 2.62 3.12# 2.44 1.57* 2.81# 2.91# 2.56 3.62# 3.01# 2.73# 1.87* 3.52# 3.28# 60.85 35.67

* Means significantly higher than the local check variety, Taiwan # Means significantly lower than the local check, variety, Taiwan

16

5/20/2010

Vegetative growth, root shape, flesh color, skin color and root size of 1 st batch of SP varieties and Super Bureau Variety Vegetative Root shape Flesh Skin color Root size Mean Growth color scores Super Bureau 2.33 1.94 1.93 1.90 2.06 2.03 2.72 3.12# 2.29 2.62 PSBSp 21 2.38 2.56 2.73 3.33# 3.35# 3.12# UPLSp 5 2.97# 3.21# 2.38 2.58 2.33 2.44 PSBSp 18 2.48 2.42 1.53* 1.59* UPLSp 11 1.62* 1.55* 1.57* 1.57* 2.47 PSBSp 22 2.47 3.09# 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 2.56 PSBSp 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 60.85 CV 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, root size, skin color and flesh color of 2 nd batch of SP varieties

Variety PSBSp 15 NSICSp 26 NSICSp 25

Vegetative Root growth shape 2.78 2.77 3.77 2.43 2.63 2.13

Root size 2.71 2.88 2.00

Skin color 2.57 2.75 2.63

Flesh color 2.71 2.71 2.25

Mean Ranking 2.64 2.75 2.56 3 4 2

VSP 3
VSP 2 Super Bureau

2.25

2.38

3.00

2.38

2.25

2.45

1
* *

* no evaluation due to poor growth and heavy SpFMV infestation

17

5/20/2010

VSP3

PSBSp 15

Selected varieties and Super Bureau
PSBSp 23

NSIC 25

Super Bureau

UPLSp 17

UPLSp 11

On-farm trials
Field lay-out LOA

18

5/20/2010

19

5/20/2010

On-farm Trials
Set 1 Selected varieties Set 2 Each set • 3 selected varieties + Super Bureau • planted by 2 farmers per site Farmers‟ management practices Sites: Pura, Moncada, Bamban, Gerona Soil sampling and analysis

Lay -out

20

5/20/2010

Distribution of cuttings

Monitoring

21

5/20/2010

Harvesting

Classification of roots

22

5/20/2010

On-farm evaluation

23

5/20/2010

Yield (tons/ha) of Set 1 varieties in four towns
SITES

Variety Set 1 NSICSp 25 PSBSp 15 PSBSp 17 Super Bureau (check)

Pura Range Mean

Gerona Range Mean

Moncada Range Mean

Bamban Range Mean

Across location Rank per mean set

4.189.77 2.562.62

6.97 4.60 4.24 1.90

5.189.33 7.8211.32

7.26 9.57 7.15 7.24

7.858.45 4.5412.64

8.15 8.59

3.757.18 6.2512.27

5.46 9.26

6.96 8.01 9.84 7.55

4 2* 1 3

0.927.55
0.233.56

6.138.17
6.787.71

15.0216.02
17.65

15.52
17.65

8.3816.55 12.46
3.063.75 3.41

24

5/20/2010

Yield (tons/ha) of Set 2 varieties in four towns
SITES Variety Pura
Range Across location mean Rank per set

Gerona

Moncada
Range Mean

Bamban
Range Mean

Set 2 VSP 3 PSBSp 23 UPLSp 11 Super Bureau (check)

Mean Range Mean

1.033.84 7.828.92

2.44 8.37

5.216.75

5.98

5.577.34

6.4

0.18 2.64 6.11 1.11

0.18 2.64 6.11 1.11

3.77 9.05 10.50 8.45

4 2 1 3

7.2910.40- 12.01 19.08 13.18 13.61 7.869.79 8.82 8.54- 14.82 21.11 14.4- 17.73 20.97

8.4216.06 12.24 2.473.96 3.22

8.2215.28 11.75

On-farm trials

4 varieties selected 1. PSPSp 17 2. NSIC 25 3. PSBSp 23 4. PSBSp 11

Planting Material producers

25

5/20/2010

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

26

5/20/2010

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

27

5/20/2010

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

28

5/20/2010

Conclusion
• The selection and preference for specific varieties in each location indicate different varieties may be maintained/conserved onfarm 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

29

5/20/2010

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 “healthregulated 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

30

5/20/2010

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

31

5/20/2010

Let‟s grow and utilize sweetpotato to be part of its conservation!!!

Thank you

32