BAGAYAO, CLIFFORD C. 2011. Effect of Planting Distance and Variety on the Production of Gourmet Potato. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Janet P. Pablo, MSc.

**ABSTRACT **

BAGAYAO, CLIFFORD C. 2011. Effect of Planting Distance and Variety on the Production of Gourmet Potato. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Janet P. Pablo, MSc.

The performance of gourmet potato as affected by planting distance and variety was evaluated. It was observed that plants spaced closer at 10 cm x10 cm and 15 cm x 15cm were significantly the tallest and produced higher yield specially the small sized tuber.

Varieties had a significant effect on the growth and yield for the production of gourmet potatoes. Raniag registered the highest number and weight of marketable tubers and gourmet type potato and the tallest plants. However there was a significant reduction of growth and total yield of ganza.

A significant interaction of spacing and varieties were noted on plants spaced closer at 10 cm x 10 cm, 15 cm x 15 cm and Raniag had better growth performance and higher yield in terms of marketable and gourmet potato tubers. Plants spaced wider at 30 cm x 30 cm and using Ganza variety produced the lowest yield.

Page

Bibliography………. i

Abstract……….... i

Table of Contents………. ii

INTRODUCTION……… 1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE……….. 2

MATERIALS AND METHODS………. 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……….. 11

Plant Survival………... 11

Plant Height……….. 11

Number of Marketable Tubers………. 14

Weight of Marketable Tubers……….. 17

Number and Weight of Non-Marketable Tuber………... 20

Total and Computed Yield………...……… 21

Reaction to Late Blight and Leaf Miner……….... 23

Number and Weight and Total Yield of Small and Marble- Sized Tuber for Gourmet Potato……….. 23 Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)……… 25

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……… 27

Summary……….. 27

Conclusions……….. 28

Recommendations………. 28

LITERATURE CITED………. 29

APPENDICES……….. 30

The demand for small, gourmet, fresh market potatoes has increased in recent years.

Production of small potatoes can be enhanced through management, although tuber size and number is not entirely under the grower’s control. Producers wishing to grow for this specialty market can follow a production plan to produce small potatoes, or they can grade out the small tubers from a mixed size tuber lot. Several factors contribute to small tuber size. Gourmet potatoes may be small, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t practical – or full of flavor. In fact, their small size and unique shapes allow for faster cooking times and make them extra tasty and delicious (Delanoy, 2003).

During this time of the year marble size baby potatoes are usually available at most
supermarkets for reason that there is a greater demand. Significant numbers of Pinoy prefer to
use small and marble potatoes for their potato salad instead of the regular sized potatoes for
better presentation. Young potatoes are also nuttier compared to the regular potatoes (Satanic et
*al.*, 2004).

Many experiments have demonstrated the influence of plant spacing on potato tuber yield
and size, but little information is available on how spacing affects growth, and how plants
compensate when grown close together or wide apart. Smaller daughter tubers are obtained by
planting at a closer spacing, which increases competition between plants resulting in smaller
daughter tubers (Vander et *al.,* 1990).

The study aimed to:

1. determine the best variety of potato gourmet production;

2. determine the best distance for the production of potato gourmet production;

3. determine the interaction effect of the two potato varieties and the different planting distance; and

4. determine the profitability of growing potato for gourmet production.

The study was conducted at the BSU Experimental Station at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from May to August 2010.

**REVIEW OF LITERATURE **

Botanical Description

Potato varieties bear flower containing asexual parts. Flowers are mostly cross-pollinated by other potato plants, including by insects, but a substantial amount of self fertilizing occurs.

Any potato variety can also be propagated vegetative by planting pieces of existing tubers, cut to
include at least one eye. Some commercial varieties of potatoes do not produce seed at all (they
bear imperfect, single-sex flowers) and are propagated only from tuber pieces. Confusingly,
these pieces can bear the name “seed potatoes”. In French, potatoes are “pommes de Terre” –
literally meaning apples of the earth (ATTRA, 2009).** **

After potato plants flower, some varieties will produce small green fruit that look similar
to green cherry tomatoes. These produce seeds like other fruits. Each of the fruit can contain up
to 300 true seeds. One can separate seeds from the fruits by putting them in a blender on a slow
speed with some water, then leaving them in water for a day so that the seeds will sink and the
rest of the fruit will float. However, some horticulturists sell chimeras by grafting a tomato plant
into a potato plant, which can produce both edible tomatoes and potatoes (North Dakota State
University, 1997).** **

When plants flower, you can harvest a few new potatoes from around the edge of each plant. New potatoes aren’t just small potatoes they’re immature spuds whose sugar hasn’t yet converted to starch, as it has in fully developed tubers. That’s why new potatoes are deliciously sweet and why they’re best when used. There are several basic planting techniques, each with an infinite number of permutations. In row gardens, plants tuber or chunks 4 inches deep and 18 inches apart in rows 2 feet apart. If you’d prefer to plant in hills, mound as you would. You can also plant potatoes in compost piles or in soil-filled. Generally, the more space you gave the

plants to develop, the higher yields will be at harvest moderately after harvest (North Dakota State University, 1999).

Gourmet

The demand for small, gourmet, fresh potatoes has increased in recent years. Production of small gourmet potatoes can be enhanced through management, although tuber size and number is not entirely under the grower’s control. Producers wishing to grow for this specially market can follow a production plan to produce small potatoes, or they can grade out the small tubers from mixed sized tuber lot (Delanoy and Schaupmeyer, 2003).

Gourmet or small grade potatoes are of growing interest to certain markets around the world and in parts of the United States. Although small-sized potatoes could be sorted out of a regular potato harvest, cultural practices can be used to purposefully grow a higher percentage of smaller potatoes for this market (Manittoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, 2004).

Plant Spacing

Plant spacing** **closer than optimal plant spacing has a similar effect on tuber growth as
does aged seed in that it increases tuber density relative to canopy size, thereby limiting the
photosynthetic capacity to bulk each tuber. Although total yields may not be reduced, bulking
rates of individual tubers decrease these results in smaller tubers and lower marketable yields.

Wider than optimal spacing can lengthen the time it takes to reach full canopy, which reduces carbohydrate supply to the tubers (Dwelle, 1993).

Plant spacing is another management practice that has a large influence on the number and size of tubers per acre is in-row plan spacing. As seed pieces are spaced closer together, tuber size and numbers per plant typically decreases. However, because the seed pieces are

spaced closer together, the resulting total plant population per acre increases, and the overall tuber size and number per acre will also likely increase (Thornton, 2009).

**MATERIALS AND METHODS **

Land Preparation

An area of 150 m^{2} was thoroughly prepared and divided into 24 plots. Each plot measures
1m x 5m. The experiment was laid-out using factor-factorial arranged in Randomized Complete
Block Design (RCBD) with three replications.

The different treatments were as follows:

Factor A- (Variety) V1 = Raniag

V2 = Ganza

Factor B- (Distance)
D_{1 }= 10x10 cm
D2 = 15x15 cm
D3 = 20x20 cm
D_{4} = 25x25 cm
D5 = 30x30 cm
Cultural Management

One tuber per hill was planted in double rows using the different planting distances.

Crop protection such as weeding and spraying was done to ensure the good growth of the plants. Weeding was done during the early stage of growth of the plants.

All other recommended cultural management practices for potato were uniformly followed in all treatments.

The data gathered were:

1. Vegetative Characters

a. Percentage survival. This was the number of plants that survived, taken 30 days after planting and computed using the formula:

No. of surviving plants

% plant survival = x 100 Total number of plants

b. Initial and final hieight of potato (cm). Initial height was obtained by measuring the plants from the ground level to the tip of the tallest shoot at 45 days DAP and final height was obtained at maturity. Ten sample plants were selected at random and measured.

c**. **Plant vigor**.** This was taken every 30 days after planting (DAP) using the following
scale:

Scale Remarks

1 Very poor growth

2 Poor growth

3 Moderately vigorous

4 Vigorous

5 Highly vigorous

2. Yield and Yield Characters

a. Number weight of marketable tubers per plot (g). All tubers that have marketable size, not malformed, free from diseases and without more than 10% greening of the total surface were considered. The tubers were classified and weighed based on the following grades:

Size Grams Extra large tubers 96 g and above

Large tubers 66 to 95 g Medium tubers 46 to 65 g Small tubers 25 to 45 g Marble tubers less than 25 g

b. Number and weight of non-marketable tubers per plot (g). This was obtained by counting all tubers that were disease infested and had 10% or more greening.

c. Total yield per plot (g). This was computed by getting the sum of marketable and non- marketable tubers.

d. Computed yield (tons/ha). This was obtained by this formula:

Total yield/plot

Computed yield (ton/ha) = x 10,000 m Plot size (m²)

3. Insect Pest and Diseases Incidence

a. Leaf miner incidence. This was taken 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting and was rated using the scale of 1-5 (CIP, 2001).

Scale Description Remarks 1 less than 20% of plants highly resistant per plot affected

2 21-40% of plants per plot moderately resistant infested

3 41-60% of plants per plot susceptible infested

4 61-80% of plants per plot moderately susceptible infested

Scale Description Remarks

5 81-100% of plants per plot very susceptible infested

b.** **Late blight incidence. This was taken when the infestation of late blight was observed
at the vegetative stage and harvesting period using the CIP (2001) rating scale:

Blight (%) Scale Description 0 1 no blight be seen

0.1 1 very few plants in larger plots with a lesion: not more than two lesions per 5m of row (+ 30 plants).

1 2 up to 10 small lesions per plants

3 3 up to 30 small lesions per plants or up to one leaflet on each 20 attacked.

10 4 most plants are visibly attacked, and one of three leaflets infected. Few multiple infections per leaflet.

25 5 nearly leaflet with lesions. Multiple infections per leaflet are common. Field or plot looks green, but all plants in plot

are affected.

50 6 every plant affected and half the leaf destroyed by blight.

Plots looks green, flecked and brown, blight is very obvious.

75 7 as previous, but three quarters of each plant affected by blight. Lower branches may be overwhelmingly killed off and only green if any, are at the top plant. Shape of plant

Blight (%) Scale Description

maybe more spindly due to extensive foliar loss. Plots look neither higher brown nor green.

91 8 some leaves and most stems are green. Plots look brown with some green patches.

97 9 few green leaves most with lesions remain. Many stem lesions. Plots look brown.

100 10 All leaves and stems dead. No visible blight leaf to evaluate Description: 1= highly resistant; 2-3= resistant; 4-5 = moderately resistant;

6-7 = modretely susceptible; 8-10 = susceptible

4. Return On Cash Expence (ROCE). This was computed using the following formula:

Gross sale – Total expenses

ROCE = x 100 Total expenses

Data Analysis

All quantitative data were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for Factor- factorial arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). The significance of difference among the treatment means was tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).

**RESULTS AND DISCUSSION**

Plant Survival

Effect of variety. Table 1 shows the percentage of the potato varieties as affected by planting distance. Significant differences were recorded on Raniag with the mean of 98.5%

compared to Ganza with a mean of 96.1%.

Effect of planting distance. Results showed that the different planting distance did not significantly affect the plant survival among the treatment means. However, 25cm x 25 cm registered a hundred percent survival.

Interaction effect. No significant interaction was noted on the potato varieties and the different planting distance on plant survival.

Plant Height

Effect of variety. Significant differences were observed on the plant height of the potato at 45 and 90 DAP. Raniag had significantly taller plants of 81.3 cm initial height and final height of 122.8 cm. The difference on the height of potato entries could be attributed to their genotypic traits.

Effect of distance. Significantly taller plants were observed on plants sown at a distance of 10 cm x 10 cm and 15 cm x 15 cm while the shortest plants were observed on plants sown at a distance of 30 cm x 30 cm at 45 and 90 DAP.

Table 1. Plant survival and height of the potato varieties as affected by planting distance for the production of gourmet potato

TREATMENT PLANT SURVIVAL (%)

HEIGHT (cm) 45 DAP 90 DAP

Variety Raniag Ganza

98.50^{a}
96.10^{b}

81.30^{a }
69.10^{b}

122.80^{a}
102.50^{b }
Distance

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

97.00 96.30 95.00 100.00

98.00

90.50^{a}
88.50^{a}
84.70^{b}
62.70^{c}
50.00^{d}

123.00^{a}
121.60^{a}
113.30^{c}
108.50^{c}
96.70^{d}

V x D ns * *

CV(%) A

B

12.11 4.01

0.400 1.98

2.54 2.49

Interaction effect. The interaction effect of the potato variety and planting distance showed a significant difference on plant height at 45 and 90 DAP. The results may prove that planting at closer distances and enhances plant height as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Number of Marketable Tubers

Effect of variety. The two varieties of potato used significantly affected the number of marketable tubers produced. The highest number of marketable tubers in all sizes were observed in Raniag with 32 XL, 41 large, 46 medium, 37 small, and 44 marble-sized tubers.

Figure 1. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the plant height at 45 DAP

Figure 2. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the plant height at 90 DAP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cmx 30cm

Effect of distance. As shown in Table 2, the closer the distance, the higher the number of marketable tubers of various sizes were produced. Significantly highest number of tubers were recorded in plants distanced at 10 x 10 cm and 15 x 15 cm with 51 and 48 marble sized tubers produced, respectively. The lowest number of marketable tubers was noted in plants distanced at 25 cm x 25 cm and 30 cm x 30 cm of 24 and 19 marble sized tubers. As mentioned by Thornton (2009), seed pieces spaced close together results to increase in tuber number per acre.

Interaction Effect. Significant interaction effect was observed on the number of marketable tubers in all sizes (Figures 3a to d) except for the production of small sized tubers as affected by the planting distance. Raniag potato variety planted at a distance of 10 cm x 10 cm significantly produced the highest number of XL, L, M, and marble-sized tubers.

Table 2. Number of marketable tubers of the potato varieties as affected by planting distance for the production of gourmet potato

TREATMENT NUMBER OF MARKETABLE TUBERS

XL LARGE MEDIUM SMALL MARBLE TOTAL Variety

Raniag Ganza

31.00^{a}
14.00^{b}

41.00^{a}
25.00^{b}

45.70^{a}
17.50^{b}

37.00^{a}
24.00^{b}

44.00^{a}
24.00^{b}

199 105 Distance

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

26^{a}
30^{a}
26^{a}
17^{b}
14^{b}

36.00^{ b}
53.00^{ a}
24.00^{ c}
25.00^{ c}
27.00^{ bc}

46.00^{ a}
34.00^{ b}
36.00^{ b}
19.00^{ c}
24.00^{ c}

39.00^{ a}
23.00^{ b}
27.00^{ b}
23.00^{ b}
19.00^{ b}

51.00^{ a}
47.00^{ a}
29.00^{ b}
24.00^{ bc}
19.00^{ c}

198 187 142 108 103

V x D * * * ns *

CV (%) A B

29.11 11.74

24.42 16.80

36.99 15.84

13.27 26.15

23.13 13.81

Figure 3a. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the number of extra large tubers.

Figure 3b. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the number of large tubers

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

Figure 3c. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the number of medium tubers

Figure 3d. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the number of marble tubers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

Weight of Marketable Tubers

Effect of variety. Results showed that significant differences were observed on the marketable weight of the potato at different sizes as shown in Table 3. Raniag significantly had the heaviest marketable tubers produced regardless of size with 3.0 kg of XL, 2.8 kg large, 2.0 kg of medium, 1.3 kg of small and 1.0kg marble sizes of potato. Gangza gave the lowest mean weight of marketable tubers produced.

Results also showed that the variety with the highest percent survival and highest number of marketable tubers had the heaviest weight of marketable tubers.

Effect of planting distance. The plants with a distance of 15cm x 15cm significantly produced the heaviest weight of tubers of XL and L sizes. The result is comparable with the plants distanced at 10cm x 10cm which significantly produced the heaviest weight of medium, small and marble-sized tubers. The low weight of marketable tubers was observed in plants distanced at 30cm x 30cm. According to Dwelle (1993), total yield may not be reduced but bulking rates of individual tubers decrease in smaller tubers and lower marketable tubers.

Interaction effect. The interaction of the potato variety and planting distance showed significant differences on the weight of marketable tubers on the production of XL, L and marble-sized tubers (Figure 4). No significant interaction effects were noted on the medium and small-sized tubers.

Planting distance of 15cm x 15cm significantly produced the heaviest weight of XL, medium, small and marble potato tubers.

The results imply that closer and higher planting densities increase the production of small and marble-sized tubers fitted for gourmet potato production.

Table 3. Weight of marketable tubers of the potato varieties as affected by planting distance for the production of gourmet potato.

TREATMENT WEIGHT OF MARKETABLE TUBERS (kg/5m^{2})

XL LARGE MEDIUM SMALL MARBLE TOTAL Variety

Raniag Ganza

3.00^{a }
1.30^{ b}

2.80^{ a}
1.80^{ b}

2.00^{ a}
0.90^{ b}

1.30^{ a}
0.50^{ b}

1.00^{ a}
0.50^{ b}

10.10 5.00 Distance

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

2.50^{ a}
2.80^{ a}
2.60^{ a}
1.70^{ b}
1.40^{ c}

2.30^{ a}
3.60^{ a}
1.70^{ b}
1.80^{ b}
2.10^{ b}

2.10^{ a}
1.70^{ a}
1.70^{ a}
0.90^{ b}
1.00^{ b}

1.20^{ a}
0.90^{ b}
0.90^{ b}
0.80^{ bc}
0.60^{ c}

1.10^{ a}
1.0^{ 0a}
0.60^{ b}
0.50^{ bc}
0.40^{ c}

14.20 10.00 7.50 5.70 5.50

V x D * * ns ns *

CV (%) A B

41.18 13.4

14.62 18.37

13.14 24.21

26.06 12.45

8.01 14.02

Figure 4a. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the weight of extra large tubers

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

Figure 4b. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the weight of large tubers

Figure 4c. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the weight of marble tubers

Number and Weight of Non-Marketable Tuber

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x25cm 30cm x 30cm

Effect of variety. Table 4 showed a significant differences on the number and weight of non-marketable tubers of the potato varieties. Ganza significantly had the highest number and weight of non-marketable tubers with means of 22.0 and 1.6 respectively, while Raniag gave the lowest mean number and weight of non-marketable tubers of 6.0 and 0.4kg, respectively.

Effect of planting distance. No significant differences were noted on the number and weight of non-marketable tubers of potato as affected by the different planting distance.

Table 4. Number and weight of non- marketable tubers of the potato varieties as affected by planting distance for the production of gourmet potato

TREATMENT NON-MARKETABLE TUBERS

NUMBER WEIGHT (kg)

Variety Raniag Ganza

6.00 ^{b}
22.00 ^{a}

0.40 ^{b}
1.60 ^{a}
Distance

10 cm x 10 cm 15 cm x 15 cm 20 cm x 20 cm 25 cm x 25 cm 30 cm x 30 cm

16.00 13.00 15.00 12.00 15.00

1.20 0.90 1.20 0.80 1.00

VXD ns ns

CV (%) A B

16.34 25.08

44.52 30.39

Interaction effect. The interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance showed no significant differences on the number and weight of non-marketable tubers.

Total and Computed Yield

Effect of variety. Table 5 shows that significant differences were observed on the yield of
the potato varieties. Raniag realized significantly the highest yield per 5m^{2} of 10.6 kg. while
Ganza gave the lowest mean of 6.6 kg. The computed yield of Raniag is almost twice (21kg.)
that of Ganza (13.3 kg.)

Effect of planting distance. Significant differences were also noted on the total and computed yield. Planting distance at 15cm x 15cm significantly produced the highest total yield and computed yield comparable with the plants distanced at 10cm x 10cm. The lowest total yield and computed yield were observed in plants distanced at 30cm x 30cm and 25cm x 25cm.

Interaction effect. The interaction effect of the potato variety and planting distances
showed significant differences on total and computed yield. Raniag significantly produced the
highest total yield when planted at a distance of 10cm x 10cm and 15cm x 15cm (Figure 5). It
was observed that as plant population is increased there is corresponding significant increase on
the total yield per 5m^{2} and computed yield.

The findings is supported by the statement of Hanai and Iruniyana (1974) which states that closer spacing for plants implies higher yield since there are more number of plants per unit area.

Table 5. Total and computed yield of the potato varieties as affected by planting distance for the production of gourmet potato

TREATMENT TOTAL YIELD (kg/5m^{2}) COMPUTED YIELD (t/ha)
Variety

Raniag Ganza

10.50 ^{a}
6.60 ^{b}

21.00 ^{a}
13.30 ^{b}
Distances

10 cm x 10 cm 15 cm x 15 cm

10.30 ^{a}
10.90 ^{a}

20.50 ^{a}
21.70 ^{a}

20 cm x 20 cm 25 cm x 25 cm 30 cm x 30 cm

8.60 ^{b}
6.70 ^{c}
5.60 ^{c}

17.10 ^{b}
13.30 ^{c}
13.10 ^{c}

VXD * *

CV (%) A B

10.59 9.66

10.29 9.70

Figure 5. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the total yield

Reaction to Late Blight and Leaf Miner

All of the varieties planted at different distances showed high resistance to late blight and leaf miner with no blight seen.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 15cm x15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cmx 30cm

Number and Weight and Total Yield of Small and Marble-sized Tuber for Gourmet Potato

Effect of variety. Table 6 shows that significant differences were observed on the
number, weight and total yield of the potato varieties. Raniag realized the highest number and
weight of small and marble-sized gourmet type potato. Ganza gave the lowest total yield of 1.1
kg/5m^{2}.

Effect of planting distance. Significant differences were also noted on the number, weight and total yield of small and marble-sized gourmet type potato as affected by planting distances.

Plants distanced at 10cm x 10cm and 15cm x 15cm significantly produced the highest number and total yield compared to the other planting distance. The lowest total yield was observed in plants distanced at 30cm x 30cm. The results prove that closer spacing between plants produce more gourmet type potatoes.

Interaction effect. The interaction effect of the potato variety and planting distances showed significant differences on number, weight and total yield of small and marble-sized gourmet type potato. Raniag significantly produced the highest total yield when planted at a distance of 10 cm x 10 cm and 15 cm x 15 cm.

Figure 6 shows that the number, weight and total yield of small and marble-sized gourmet type potato increase as planting distance decreased regardless of variety used.

Table 6. Number, weight and total yield of small and marble gourmet potato as affected by varieties and planting distance

TREATMENT NUMBER WEIGHT (Kg) TOTAL YIELD
(kg/5m^{2})
SMALL MARBLE SMALL MARBLE

Variety Raniag Ganza Distance

10 x 10 cm 15 x 15 cm 20 x 20 cm 25 x 25 cm 30 x 30 cm VxD

CV (%)A B

36.50^{a }
15.70^{b }
38.80^{a }
22.80^{b }
26.80^{b }
23.20^{b }
18.80^{b}

ns 13.27 26.15

43.70^{ a}
23.80^{ b}
50.70^{a}
46.70^{a}
28.80^{b}
23.70^{bc}
18.80^{c}

* 23.13 13.81

1.30^{a}
0.50^{b}
1.20^{a}
0.90^{b}
0.90^{b}
0.80^{bc}

0.60^{c}
ns
26.06
12.45

0.90^{a }
0.50^{b}
1.20^{a}
1.00^{b}
0.60^{b}
0.50^{c}
0.40^{c }

* 8.01 14.02

2.20^{a}
1.10^{b}
2.40^{a}
2.00^{b}
1.50^{c}
1.30^{c}
1.10^{d}
**

22.28 12.07

Figure 6. Interaction effect of the potato varieties and planting distance on the total yield of small and marble-sized gourmet potato

Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)

Raniag planted at a distance of 10cm x 10cm and 15cm x 15cm registered the highest ROCE (56% and 92%) while Ganza distanced at 30cm x 30cm had the highest negative ROCE

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Raniag Ganza

10cm x 10cm 1cm x 15cm 20cm x 20cm 25cm x 25cm 30cm x 30cm

(Table 7). This implies that high ROCE is realized when Raniag is planted at closer distances. It was observed that higher number and weight of small and marble-sized tubers increase as planting distance decreases.

Table 7. Cost and return analysis for small and marble-sized tubers for gourmet potato production

TREATMENT YIELD (kg/plot)

GROSS SALE

(PhP)

COST OF PRODUCTION

(PhP)

NET INCOME

(PhP)

ROCE (%) Raniag

10 cm x 10 cm 15 cm x 15 cm 20 cm x 20 cm 25 cm x 25 cm 30 cm x 30 cm

3.2 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.5

160.00 120.00 110.00 90.00 75.00

62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50

97.50 57.50 47.50 27.50 12.50

156.00 92.00 76.00 44.00 20.00 Ganza

10 cm x 10 cm 15 cm x 15 cm 20 cm x 20 cm 25 cm x 25 cm 30 cm x 30 cm

1.5 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.6

75.00 75.00 45.00 45.00 30.00

62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50 62.50

12.50 12.50 -17.50 -17.50 -32.50

20.00 20.00 -28.00 -28.00 -52.00 Cost of tubers is P50/kg

**SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS **

Summary

The effect of the different planting distance on the production of gourmet potato was studied. The study aimed to determine the best variety of potato for gourmet production;

determine the best distance for potato gourmet production; determine the effect of the potato varieties and the different planting distance; and to determine the profitability of growing potato for gourmet production.

The different planting distances used were: 10 cm x 10 cm, 15 cm x15 cm, 20 cm x 20 cm, 25 cm x 25 cm and 30 cm x 30 cm while the potato varieties used were Raniag and Ganza.

Among the varieties used, Raniag had the highest plant survival, tallest plants at 45 and 90 DAP, produced the highest and heaviest marketable tubers, lowest non-marketable tubers, highest number and weight of small and marble tubers and realized the highest total and computed yield and ROCE.

On the effect of the different planting distance, plants distanced at 10 cm x 10 cm and 15 cm x 15 cm promoted the production of taller plants, produced the highest and heaviest marketable tubers, highest total and computed yield and realized the highest ROCE. The plant distanced at 10 cm x 10 cm produced the highest number and heaviest weight of gourmet potato.

Plants distanced at 15 cm x 15 cm gave the highest number and weight of extra large and large tubers while 10 cm x10 cm plant distance results to the production of medium, small and marble tubers in terms of number and weight, thus, it is more suited for the production of gourmet-type potato tubers.

Significant interaction effects were noted between the two potato varieties and the different planting distance. Raniag variety at a distance of 15 cm x 15cm produced the highest

and heaviest XL and large marketable tubers while Raniag potato planted at a distance of 10 cm x 10 cm promoted the production of more gourmet type potato and highest ROCE.

No significant interaction effect were noted on plant survival, production of small number of marketable tuber, production of medium and small weight of marketable tuber

Conclusions

Raniag is the best performing variety in the production of gourmet type potato as it produces the highest number and heaviest weight of marketable tubers, total and computed yield and produced the highest number and heaviest gourmet potato. Raniag also displayed the highest percent survival & tallest plants.

Potato plants distanced at 10cm x 10 cm and 15 cm x 15 cm produce the highest number and heaviest weight of gourmet type tubers.

Raniag variety with a plant distance of 10 cm x 10 cm and 15 cm x 15 cm showed the best performance in all parameters measured including the production of gourmet type potato.

Recommendations

Under the conditions of the study, Raniag is the best variety for the production of gourmet potato. Plant distance of 10 cm x 10 cm and 15 cm x15 cm is also recommended.

Further, it is recommended that the results of the study be extended to farmers interested to produce gourmet potato.

**LITERATURE CITED **

ATTRA. 2009. Commercial Potato Production and Management. Retrieved December 5, 2010 from http://www.uky. edu/Ag/NewCrops/vegbudgets08.

DELANOY, L. 2003.Gourmet Potato Production. Retrieved January17, 2010 from http://

www. ca. uky .edu/agcpubs/ id /id134/id134. htm

DWELLE, R.B. Potato Health Management. Retrieved January 17, 2010 from http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/potato/PotatoProductionSystems/Topics/Growth&Developm ent.pdf.

INTERNATIONAL POTATO CENTER (CIP). 2001. Facts Sheet.Peru: CIP. 12 pages.

MABREY, V. and D. APTON. 2008. From McMuffins to McLattes: McDonald’s Chases Gourmet Market,Plans Massive Restaurant Upgrade. Retrieved January 25, 2010 from http://twitter.com/gourmet.

MANITOBA AGRICULTURE, FOOD and RURAL INITIATIVES. 2004. Gourmet Potato Production. Retreved February 4, 2010 from http:// www. gov.mb .ca/

agriculture/cropspotato/ bda0s 10.html

NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY .1997. Fertilizing potato. Retreved February 18, 2011 from http://www.Ext . nodak. edu/ extpubs/ plantsci/ soilfert/sf715w.htm

NOVELLI, M. 2004. Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases. Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/ veg budget 08.html

SATANEK, A., ROWELL, B., J. SNYDER, and D. SLONE. 2004. Gourmet and Fingerling Potato Cultivar Trial. Retrieved February 20, 2010 from http:// www .hort. purdue. edu/

fruit veg/ rep _pres/2004-/MVVT 2004 PDF/Potatoes_KY_04.pdf

THORNTON, M. 2009. Potato research. Retrieved February 19, 2010 from http:/ www . cals.

uidaho. edu/ potato/ Research&Extension/ Topic/Growth&Physiology/

ImportanceOfTuberSet&BulkingRate- 07. pdf

VENDER,W.H. and H. Veeman 1966. The potato. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from http:

//www. oznet. ksu. edu/library/ hort2/ samplers/MF1090. asp

**APPENDICES**

Appendix Table 1. Plant survival (%)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V_{1}D_{1} 100 98 96 294 98.00

V1D2 100 97 94 291 97.00

V_{1}D_{3 } 100 100 92 292 97.00

V1D4 100 100 100 300 100.00

V1D5 100 100 100 300 100.00

Sub-Total 500 495 482 1499 292

V_{2}D_{1} 100 96 92 288 96.00

V2D2 96 97 94 287 95.00

V2D3 94 100 84 278 92.00

V_{2}D_{4 } 100 100 100 300 100.00

V2D5 88 100 100 288 96.00

Sub-Total 498 493 470 1441 480.00

TOTAL 978 988 952 2918 772.70

MEAN 97.8 98.8 95.2 29.18 77.27

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 98.00 96.00 194.00 97.00

15 x 15 cm 97.00 95.70 192.70 96.35

20 x 20 cm 97.30 92.70 190.00 95.00

25 x 25 cm 100.00 100.00 200.00 100.00 30 x 30 cm 100.00 96.00 196.00 98.00

TOTAL 292.30 480.40

MEAN 58.46 96.08

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Replication 2 69.067 34.533

Main Factor A 1 43.200 43.200 4.32ns 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 20.000 10.000

Sub-plot Factor B 4 84.533 21.133 1.39ns 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 22.133 5.533 0.36ns 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 264.933 15.183

TOTAL 29 481.869

ns- not significant

CV (%) = (a) = 12.11 (b) = 4.01

Appendix Table 2. Initial height (cm)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 91.30 92.70 91.10 271.50 91.70
V1D2 90.90 94.10 92.10 277.10 92.40
V_{1}D_{3 } 87.60 89.00 89.10 265.70 88.60
V1D4 72.60 74.20 74.60 221.40 93.80
V_{1}D_{5 } 58.90 58.80 62.50 180.20 60.10
Sub-Total 401.30 408.80 409.90 1215.90 406.60
V2D1 87.80 89.40 90.50 267.70 89.20
V2D2 83.20 85.90 84.60 253.20 54.40
V_{2}D_{3 } 82.00 81.00 79.30 242.30 80.80
V2D4 47.90 52.90 54.00 154.80 51.60
V2D5 39.40 39.50 39.00 177.90 39.60
Sub-Total 340.30 348.70 347.40 1096.20 345.60
TOTAL 741.60 757.50 757.30 2312.10 752.20

MEAN 741.60 75.75 75.73 231.21 75.22

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 91.70 89.20 180.90 90.45

15 x 15 cm 92.40 84.40 176.80 88.40

20 x 20 cm 88.60 80.80 169.40 84.70

25 x 25 cm 93.80 51.60 125.40 62.70 30 x 30 cm 60.10 39.60 99.70 49.85

TOTAL 406.60 345.60

MEAN 81.32 69.12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Replication 2 16.145 8.072

Main Factor A 1 1117.520 1117.520 123.71** 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 0.181 0.090

Sub-plot Factor B 4 7836.261 1959.065 888.10** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 460.268 115.067 52.20** 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 35.295 2.206

TOTAL 29 9465.669

**- highly significant

CV (%) = (a) = 0.40 (b) = 1.98

Appendix Table 3. Final height (cm)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 132.50 132.70 131.60 396.80 132.30
V1D2 131.40 131.00 132.50 394.90 131.60
V_{1}D_{3 } 127.50 127.20 127.10 381.80 127.30
V1D4 112.60 123.60 122.20 358.40 119.50
V_{1}D_{5 } 103.90 103.00 103.30 310.20 103.40
Sub-Total 607.90 615.50 616.70 1842.10 614.00

V_{2}D_{1} 113.80 112.50 114.80 341.10 113.70

V2D2 112.50 110.70 111.60 334.80 111.60
V2D3 99.30 100.00 98.40 297.70 99.20
V_{2}D_{4 } 94.60 93.40 104.90 292.90 97.60
V2D5 89.90 88.80 91.70 270.40 90.10
Sub-Total 510.10 505.40 521.40 1536.90 512.30
TOTAL 1118 1122.90 1138.10 3382 1126.30
MEAN 111.80 112.29 113.81 33.82 112.63

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 132.30 113.70 246.00 123.00

15 x 15 cm 131.60 111.60 243.20 121.60

20 x 20 cm 127.30 99.20 226.50 113.25

25 x 25 cm 119.50 97.60 217.10 108.55 30 x 30 cm 103.40 90.10

TOTAL 614.10 512.20

MEAN 122.80 102.11

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 22.136 11.067

Main Factor A 1 3106.936 3106.936 379.90 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 16.355 8.177 87.50**

Sub-plot Factor B 4 2742.941 685.735 5.50** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 171.325 42.831 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 125.449

TOTAL 29 6185.142

**- highly significant

CV (%) = (a) = 0.40 (b) = 1.98

Appendix Table 4.Number of extra large tubers

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 35 38 25 98 32.70

V1D2 46 50 30 126 42.00

V_{1}D_{3 } 37 39 18 94 31.30

V1D4 31 35 19 85 28.30

V_{1}D_{5 } 24 24 11 59 19.70

Sub-Total 173 186 103 462 154

V2D1 21 22 13 56 18.70

V2D2 20 18 10 48 16.00

V_{2}D_{3 } 20 25 15 60 20.00

V2D4 4 7 6 17 5.70

V2D5 6 10 7 23 7.70

Sub-Total 74 82 51 207 69

TOTAL 180 268 154 602 223

MEAN 18.00 26.80 15.40 60.20 22.30

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 32.00 18.70 51.40 25.70

15 x 15 cm 42.00 16.00 58.00 29.00

20 x 20 cm 31.30 20.00 51.30 25.60

25 x 25 cm 28.30 5.70 34.00 17.00

30 x 30 cm 19.70 7.70 27.40 13.70

TOTAL 151.00 69.00

MEAN 30.80 13.80

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 52.543 26.271

Main Factor A 1 454.344 454.344 145.98 18.51 98.49

Error (a) 2 6.224 3.112

Sub-plot Factor B 4 376.221 94.055 34.03** 3.01 4.77 AxB 4 52.714 13.178 4.77* 3.01 4.77 Error (b) 16 44.226 2.764

TOTAL 29 986.272

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 10.29 (b) = 9.70

Appendix Table 5. Number of large tubers

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 32 23 25 80 26.70

V1D2 70 51 47 168 56.00

V_{1}D_{3 } 45 36 30 111 37.00

V1D4 44 31 35 110 36.70

V_{1}D_{5 } 59 41 39 139 46.30

Sub-Total 25 182 176 608 202.70

V2D1 57 43 34 134 44.70

V2D2 59 47 41 147 49.00

V_{2}D_{3 } 14 11 9 34 11.30

V2D4 10 13 15 38 12.70

V2D5 4 9 11 24 8.00

Sub-Total 139 123 110 377 125.70

TOTAL 38.90 30.50 28.60 98.50 32.83

MEAN 19.45 15.25 14.30 49.25 16.41

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 26.70 44.70 71.40 35.70

15 x 15 cm 56.00 49.00 105.00 52.50

20 x 20 cm 37.00 11.30 48.30 24.10

25 x 25 cm 36.70 12.70 49.40 24.70

30 x 30 cm 46.30 8.00 54.30 27.20

TOTAL 202.70 125.70

MEAN 40.54 25.14

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 664.867 332.433

Main Factor A 1 1778.700 1778.700 27.7* 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 128.600 64.300

Sub-plot Factor B 4 3412.333 853.083 28.1** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 2837.133 709.283 23.3** 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 486.533 30.408

TOTAL 29 9308.167

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 24.42 (b) = 16.80

Appendix Table 6. Number of medium tubers

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 80 51 47 178 59.30

V1D2 56 41 39 136 45.30

V_{1}D_{3 } 65 53 48 166 55.30

V1D4 35 29 21 85 28.30

V_{1}D_{5 } 48 40 33 121 40.30

Sub-Total 284 214 188 686 228.70

V2D1 41 30 26 97 32.30

V2D2 31 21 15 67 22.30

V_{2}D_{3 } 14 18 15 47 15.70

V2D4 9 11 6 26 8.70

V2D5 5 13 7 25 8.30

Sub-Total 100 93 69 262 87.30

TOTAL 384 307 257 948 316

MEAN 38.40 30.70 25.70 94.8 31.60

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 59.30 32.30 91.60 45.80

15 x 15 cm 45.30 22.30 67.60 33.80

20 x 20 cm 55.30 15.70 71.00 35.50

25 x 25 cm 28.30 8.70 37.00 18.50

30 x 30 cm 40.30 8.30 48.00 24.30

TOTAL 228.50 87.30

MEAN 45.70 43.65

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 818.600 409.300

Main Factor A 1 5992.533 5992.533 43.9* 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 273.267 136.633

Sub-plot Factor B 4 2683.200 670.800 26.8** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 370.800 92.700 3.7* 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 400.800 25.050

TOTAL 29 10539.200

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 36.99 (b) = 15.84

Appendix Table 7. Number of small tubers

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 65 51 47 163 54.30

V1D2 42 33 35 80 26.70

V_{1}D_{3 } 50 37 30 117 39.00

V1D4 41 29 33 103 34.30

V_{1}D_{5 } 30 25 30 85 28.30

Sub-Total 228 175 175 578 192.70

V2D1 27 20 23 70 23.30

V2D2 20 16 21 57 19.00

V_{2}D_{3 } 16 13 15 44 14.70

V2D4 12 11 13 36 12.00

V2D5 10 7 11 28 9.30

Sub-Total 85 67 83 235 78.30

TOTAL 313 240 258 813 271

MEAN 31.30 24.00 25.80 81.30 27.10

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 53.30 23.30 76.60 38.30

15 x 15 cm 26.70 19.00 45.70 22.90

20 x 20 cm 39.00 14.70 53.70 26.90

25 x 25 cm 34.30 12.00 46.30 23.20

30 x 30 cm 28.30 9.30 37.60 18.80

TOTAL 181.60 78.30

MEAN 36.32 15.70

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 85.400 42.700

Main Factor A 1 3265.633 3265.633 271.4** 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 24.067 12.033

Sub-plot Factor B 4 1408.533 352.133 7.6** 3.01 4.77
AxB 4 441.867 110.467 2.4^{ns} 3.01 4.77
Error (b) 16 108.667 6.792

TOTAL 29 5970.700

** - highly significant

ns- not significant

CV (%) = (a) = 13.29 (b) = 26.15

Appendix Table 8. Number of marble tubers

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 79 67 59 205 63.30

V1D2 63 57 54 174 58.00

V_{1}D_{3 } 54 39 30 123 41.00

V1D4 38 20 23 81 27.00

V_{1}D_{5 } 31 23 18 72 24.00

Sub-Total 265 206 184 658 219.30

V2D1 40 38 21 99 33.00

V2D2 37 31 38 196 35.30

V_{2}D_{3 } 24 19 7 50 16.70

V2D4 20 24 17 61 20.30

V2D5 17 13 11 41 13.70

Sub-Total 138 125 94 357 119

TOTAL 403 331 257 1015 338.30

MEAN 40.30 33.10 27.50 10.15 33.8316

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 63.30 33.00 96.30 48.10

15 x 15 cm 58.00 35.00 93.00 46.50

20 x 20 cm 41.00 16.70 57.70 28.85

25 x 25 cm 27.00 20.30 47.30 23.65 30 x 30 cm 24.00 13.70 37.70 18.85

TOTAL 213.30 118.70

MEAN 42.66 23.72

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 787.267 393.633

Main Factor A 1 2960.133 2960.133 49.8* 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 118.867 59.433

Sub-plot Factor B 4 4808.200 1202.050 55.4** 3.01 4.77 AxB 4 798.200 199.550 9.2** 3.01 4.77 Error (b) 16 347.200 21.700

TOTAL 29 9819.867

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 23.13 (b) = 13.81

Appendix Table 9. Weight of extra large tubers (kg)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 3.00 3.70 2.50 9.20 3.10

V1D2 4.50 4.90 2.90 12.20 4.10

V_{1}D_{3 } 3.90 3.80 1.80 9.50 3.20

V1D4 3.10 3.40 1.90 8.40 2.80

V_{1}D_{5 } 2.30 2.40 1.10 5.70 2.00

Sub-Total 16.80 18.20 10.20 45.20 15.20

V2D1 2.10 2.20 1.30 5.50 1.90

V2D2 1.90 1.80 1.00 4.60 1.50

V_{2}D_{3 } 2.00 2.40 1.50 5.90 1.90

V2D4 0.50 0.70 0.60 1.80 0.60

V2D5 0.60 1.00 1.70 2.40 0.70

Sub-Total 7.10 8.10 5.10 20.30 6.80

TOTAL 23.90 26.30 15.30 65.70 22.00

MEAN 2.39 2.63 1.53 6.57 2.20

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 3.10 1.90 5.00 2.50

15 x 15 cm 4.10 1.50 5.60 2.80

20 x 20 cm 3.20 1.90 5.10 2.60

25 x 25 cm 2.80 0.60 3.40 1.70

30 x 30 cm 2.00 0.70 2.70 1.40

TOTAL 15.20 6.60

MEAN 3.04 1.32

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Replication 2 6.580

Main Factor A 1 20.619 3.290 18.51 98.49 Error (a) 2 1.602 20.619 25.7*

Sub-plot Factor B 4 9.189 0.801 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 2.558 2.297 26.8** 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 1.372 0.639 7.5**

TOTAL 29 41.920 0.086

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 41.18 (b) = 13.47

Appendix Table 10. Weight of large tubers (kg)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 1.30 1.70 1.90 4.80 1.60

V1D2 4.10 3.50 4.20 11.80 4.00

V_{1}D_{3 } 2.50 2.50 2.30 7.20 2.40

V1D4 2.50 2.00 3.40 7.90 2.60

V_{1}D_{5 } 3.70 3.70 3.50 10.90 3.60

Sub-Total 14.10 13.40 15.30 42.80 14.00

V2D1 3.20 3.00 2.70 8.80 3.00

V2D2 3.40 3.30 3.10 1.00 3.20

V_{2}D_{3 } 1.90 9.70 9.60 3.20 1.10

V2D4 0.60 1.20 1.40 3.10 1.10

V2D5 9.20 1.00 1.00 2.00 9.60

Sub-Total 9.30 9.20 8.80 18.10 6.00

TOTAL 13.40 22.60 24.10 60.90 20.30

MEAN 1.34 2.26 2.41 6.09 2.03

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 1.60 3.00 4.60 2.30

15 x 15 cm 4.00 3.20 7.20 3.60

20 x 20 cm 2.40 1.10 3.50 1.70

25 x 25 cm 2.60 1.00 3.60 1.80

30 x 30 cm 3.60 0.60

TOTAL 14.20 8.90

MEAN 2.84 1.78

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Replication 2 0.150 0.075

Main Factor A 1 8.421 8.421 73.4* 18.51 98.49

Error (a) 2 0.229 0.115

Sub-plot Factor B 4 13.429 3.357 18.5** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 14.994 3.749 20.8 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 400.800 25.050

TOTAL 29 40.124

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 14.62 (b) = 18.37

Appendix Table 11. Weight of medium tubers (kg)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 2.70 2.50 2.30 8.00 2.70

V1D2 2.10 2.70 2.20 7.00 2.30

V_{1}D_{3 } 2.60 2.10 2.40 7.10 2.40

V1D4 1.20 1.50 1.20 4.00 1.30

V_{1}D_{5 } 0.50 2.40 1.80 4.70 1.60

Sub-Total 9.10 11.20 10.00 30.20 10.00

V2D1 1.50 1.80 1.40 4.70 1.60

V2D2 1.10 1.30 0.80 3.20 1.10

V_{2}D_{3 } 1.00 1.00 0.90 2.80 0.90

V2D4 0.40 0.70 0.70 1.70 0.60

V2D5 0.20 0.80 0.40 1.40 0.50

Sub-Total 4.20 5.60 4.20 13.80 4.60

TOTAL 13.30 16.80 14.20 315.80 14.60

MEAN 1.31 1.68 1.42 31.58 1.46

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 2.70 1.60 4.30 2.15

15 x 15 cm 2.30 1.10 3.40 1.70

20 x 20 cm 2.40 0.90 3.30 1.60

25 x 25 cm 1.30 0.60 1.90 1.00

30 x 30 cm 1.60 0.50 2.10 1.05

TOTAL 10.30 4.70

MEAN 2.06 0.94

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Replication 2 0.591 0.296

Main Factor A 1 9.442 9.442 244.1** 18.51 98.49

Error (a) 2 0.077 0.039

Sub-plot Factor B 4 5.846 1.461 11.3** 3.01 4.77
AxB 4 0.387 0.097 0.75^{ns} 3.01 4.77
Error (b) 16 2.073 0.130

TOTAL 29 18.416

** - highly significant

ns- not significant

CV (%) = (a) = 13.19 (b) = 24.21

Appendix Table 12. Weight of small tubers (kg)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I III

V1D1 2.00 1.60 1.60 5.10 1.70

V_{1}D_{2 } 1.30 1.10 1.20 3.60 1.20

V1D3 1.60 1.20 0.90 3.80 1.30

V1D4 1.20 1.10 1.10 3.50 1.20

V_{1}D_{5 } 0.90 1.00 0.90 2.90 1.00

Sub-Total 7.00 6.00 5.70 18.70 6.20

V2D1 0.80 0.70 0.80 2.30 0.80

V_{2}D_{2 } 0.70 0.60 0.70 2.00 0.70

V2D3 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 0.50

V2D4 0.40 0.40 0.50 1.30 0.40

V_{2}D_{5 } 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.90 0.30

Sub-Total 2.70 2.40 2.80 8.00 2.70

TOTAL 9.70 8.40 5.50 23.60 8.90

MEAN 0.97 0.84 0.55 2.36 0.89

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 1.70 0.80 2.50 1.30

15 x 15 cm 1.20 0.70 1.90 1.00

20 x 20 cm 1.30 0.50 1.80 0.90

25 x 25 cm 1.20 0.40 1.60 0.80

30 x 30 cm 1.10 0.30 1.30 0.60

TOTAL 6.40 2.70

MEAN 1.28 0.54

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Replication 2 0.099 0.049

Main Factor A 1 3.914 3.914 79.0* 18.51 98.49

Error (a) 2 0.099 0.050

Sub-plot Factor B 4 1.198 0.300 24.3** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 0.122 0.031 2.5^{ns} 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 0.197 0.012

TOTAL 29 5.630

** - highly significant

ns- not significant

CV (%) = (a) = 25.06 (b) = 12.45

Appendix Table 13. Weight of marble tubers (kg)

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 1.80 1.50 1.20 4.50 1.50

V1D2 1.30 1.30 1.10 3.70 1.20

V_{1}D_{3 } 1.10 0.80 0.60 2.60 0.90

V1D4 0.80 0.60 0.50 1.80 0.60

V_{1}D_{5 } 0.70 0.80 0.40 1.60 0.50

Sub-Total 5.70 5.00 3.80 14.50 4.80

V2D1 0.90 0.70 0.40 2.20 0.70

V2D2 0.80 0.40 0.80 2.30 0.80

V_{2}D_{3 } 0.50 0.60 0.30 1.10 0.40

V2D4 0.50 0.60 0.40 1.40 0.50

V2D5 0.40 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.30

Sub-Total 3.10 2.60 2.20 7.90 2.70

TOTAL 8.80 7.60 6.00 22.40 7.50

MEAN 0.88 0.76 0.60 2.24 0.75

TWO WAY TABLE

PLANTING DISTANCE (cm)

VARIETY TOTAL MEAN RANIAG GANZA

10 x 10 cm 1.50 0.70 2.20 1.10

15 x 15 cm 1.20 0.80 2.00 1.00

20 x 20 cm 0.90 0.40 1.30 0.70

25 x 25 cm 0.60 0.50 1.10 0.60

30 x 30 cm 0.50 0.30 0.80 0.40

TOTAL 4.70 2.70

MEAN 0.94 0.54

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE SOURCE

OF VARIATION

DEGREE OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN OF SQUARES

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Replication 2 0.427 0.214

Main Factor A 1 1.313 1.313 72.4* 18.51 98.49

Error (a) 2 0.036 0.018

Sub-plot Factor B 4 2.190 0.547 50.2** 3.01 4.77

AxB 4 0.387 0.097 8.8** 3.01 4.77

Error (b) 16 0.174 0.011

TOTAL 29 4.527

** - highly significant

*- significant

CV (%) = (a) = 8.01 (b) = 14.02

Appendix Table 14. Number of marketable tubers

TREATMENT

REPLICATION

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

V1D1 7 7 8 22 7.30

V1D2 5 6 5 16 5.30

V_{1}D_{3 } 9 4 9 22 7.30

V1D4 3 7 3 13 4.30

V_{1}D_{5 } 8 4 4 16 5.30

Sub-Total 32 28 28 89 29.70

V2D1 25 23 23 71 23.70

V2D2 18 27 15 60 20.00

V_{2}D_{3 } 20 28 21 69 23.00

V2D4 17 20 22 59 20.00

V2D5 28 19 25 72 24.00

Sub-Total 108 117 106 331 110.70

TOTAL 140 145 135 420 140

MEAN 1.40 1.45 1.35 4.20 1.40