• Walang Nahanap Na Mga Resulta

PDF BIBLIOGRAPHY - portal.bsu.edu.ph:8081

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "PDF BIBLIOGRAPHY - portal.bsu.edu.ph:8081"

Copied!
74
0
0

Buong text

(1)

SAWAC, BRADENBURG P. APRIL 2010. On-farm Evaluation of Potato Entries for Organic Production Under Loo, Buguias, Benguet Condition. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet

Adviser: Belinda A. Tad-awan, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted at Loo, Buguias, Benguet from November 2009 to March 2010 to evaluate potato entries for organic production; determine the best performing potato entries in terms of yield, and resistance to pests; determine the profitability of growing organic potato entries for organic production and document the practices on organic potato production.

Ganza obtained the highest percent survival, exhibited the tallest plants, highest canopy cover, and highly vigorous plants at 75 DAP. MLUSA 5, MLUSA 8 and Ganza were rated moderately resistant to late blight at 75 DAP. Ganza was rated highly resistant and MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 were moderately resistant to frost injury at 60 and 75 DAP. All of the entries were moderately resistant to leaf miner. Ganza produced the heaviest marketable and non-marketable tubers and had the highest return on cash expense (ROCE).

Potato entries MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 produced marketable tubers were resistant to late blight and had a positive ROCE under organic production.

Under the condition of the study MULSA 5 and MLUSA 8 can be recommended for organic production at Loo, Buguias, Benguet.

(2)

Page Bibliography ………

Abstract ………… ……….…...

Table of Contents ……….….……..

INTRODUCTION ……….………..

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………..………..…..

MATERIALS AND METHODS ………...

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ………...…….….

Agro-climatic Data ………..………

Chemical Soil Properties ……….………...

Percent Survival………..………..……

Plant Height ………...

Canopy Cover ……….…….

Plant Vigor ………..……….

Leaf Miner Incidence ……….……….….…

Late Blight Incidence ………...……….……...…

Frost Injury Rating ………....

Number of Marketable and

Non-marketable Tubers per Hill……….………....

Weight of Marketable and

Non-marketable Tubers per Hill………....

22

23

24 i i ii

1 3 6 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21

(3)

Dry Matter and Sugar Content ….…….………..………..

Return on Cash Expense ………

Documentation of Cultural

Practices on Organic Production ………....………..………

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………

LITERATURE CITED ………..………...

APPENDICES ……….….………

27 28

29 39 40 41

(4)

INTRODUCTION

The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is a tuberous-rooted tropical and subtropical plant grown in temperate countries as an annual. It is mostly used as a vegetable, a source of starch, and for other commercial purpose. Though not widely grown in home gardens, it can be a most satisfying producer (Mosley, 2003). Potato is one of the most planted crops in the Cordillera particularly in Benguet and Mt. Province. The production of this crop is more profitable, thus, gives farmers a higher income compared with other crops in the highlands.

Organic production practices maximize the use and recycling of on-farm nutrient sources, including animal and green manures. Techniques such as accurate soil analysis and nutrient crediting help producers avoid excess fertilizer applications. Sustainable farming methods also include soil-building and conserving practices such as adding organic matter and minimum tillage approaches. Biointensive integrated pest management is also a sustainable farming method (NSAI, 2005).

Organic potato production needs a variety that is suitable to the environment, resistant against insects and diseases and high yielding. In addition, resistant varieties can help farmers minimize the use of synthetic fungicides and insecticides. It is, therefore, important to evaluate varieties for organic production.

The study was conducted to:

1. evaluate potato entries for organic production under Loo, Buguias, Benguet;

2. determine the best performing potato entries for organic production in terms of yield, and resistance to pests under Loo, Buguias condition;

(5)

3. determine the profitability of growing organic potato entries for organic production at Loo, Buguias; and

4. document the practices employed in organic potato production in Loo, Buguias, Benguet.

The study was conducted at Ludeg, Loo, Buguias, Benguet from November 2009 to March 2010.

(6)

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Organic Farming Defined

Organic agriculture encompasses all agricultural systems that promote environmentally, socially and economically sound production of food and fibers. These systems take soil fertility as a key to successful production. It aims to optimize quality in all aspects of agriculture and the environment. Organic agriculture dramatically reduces external inputs by avoiding from the use of chemo-synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. Instead, it allows the powerful laws of nature to increase both agricultural yields and disease resistance (PCARRD, 2006).

Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including bio-diversity, biological cycle and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfill any specific function within the system (PCARRD, 2006).

Benefits of Using Organic Fertilizer

Organic fertilizers add the nutrients to the soil that plants need to be more productive. These vital nutrients include phosphorous, nitrogen and potassium. These nutrients allow for the plant to grow larger blooming flowers and larger fruits. Not only does the quality increase, but so do the quantity, allowing the grower to harvest more and better fruits and flowers. Plants receiving the proper amounts of the nutrient potassium grow tougher cell walls and coarser vegetation. This makes them much more resistant to

(7)

pests and diseases. Plants receiving enough phosphorous also use water more efficiently, which allows them to survive cold and dry spells. Organic fertilizers have positive effects on all types of soil. Looser soils, such as sand, are held together better by a strong root system that nitrogen promotes. In this case, the fertilizer helps plants grow stronger and also helps slow erosion. Soils that are denser and harder to penetrate, such as clay, may be loosened up by a similar root structure. In this case, the soil becomes more easily workable for farming and also more oxygenated to promote photosynthesis. Organic fertilizers release their nutrients slowly and consistently. It is this slow release that keeps plants growing healthy for longer periods of time. The slow absorption rate of nutrients from organic fertilizers means that there will not be a period of extreme bloom followed by a period of plant dormancy. Organic fertilizers keep plants growing healthy and productive longer into the season despite changing weather and soil temperatures.

Organic fertilizers break down slowly, which means they need to be applied much less frequently than other types of fertilizers (Newsome, 2009).

Organic farming produced either the same yield or lower but consume less energy crops yield may be lower in 20% in organic system, but inputs and of fertilizer and energy is reduced by 34% to 53% and pesticides inputs by 77% (Madder and Fliebach, 2002).

Varietal Evaluation for Organic Potato Production

Aguirre (2006) found out that potato entries from NPRCRTC could be recommended for organic production in La Trinidad, Benguet since no significant differences were observed in terms of their yield. However CIP 13.1.1 is highly recommended due to its high yield and resistance to late blight. In addition, entries CIP

(8)

575003 and CIP 676089 can be also recommended for processing due to their high dry matter content.

Gayomba (2006) found that CIP 13.1.1 is the best genotype for organic production at Sinipsip, Buguias due to its high canopy cover, high resistance to late blight and high total yield. Genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE (return on cash expense) for both seed and end table potato production.

Imarga (2009) found that CIP 380241.17, MLUSA 5, MLUSA 8 and Igorota are adapted under organic production at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet. Igorota and MLUSA 3 were highly resistant to late blight while the other entries were rated moderately resistant to leaf miner at 75 DAP. MLUSA 5 produced the highest number of marketable tuber while CIP 380241.17 produced the heaviest weight of marketable tubers, high yield and highest ROCE.

Lem-ew (2007) found that CIP 13.1.1 and CIP 5.119.2.2 are the best potato entries under organic production at Bakun, Benguet exhibiting resistance to late blight and high yield.

Montes (2006) also found that potato genotype CIP 676089 is the best under organic production at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet as evidenced by highly vigorous and tall plants, high yield, high dry matter content of tubers and resistance to late blight.

(9)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Organic Farm

The organic farm is located at Ludeg, Loo, Buguias, Benguet with an elevation of 1,636 masl. The farm was conventional for a long time but was transformed to organic farming in 2004.

The owner of the farm is Mr. Pio Toyaoan, 67 years old and an organic practitioner for 5 years.

Land Preparation

An area of 60 m2 in Mr. Pion Toyaoan’s farm was thoroughly prepared before planting and, divided into three blocks, which corresponds to three replications. Each block was divided into five plots measuring 1m x 5 m each.

Organic Fertilizer Preparation and Application

Bio-organic fertilizer was equally applied at the rate of 5 kg/plot two weeks before planting. Fermented sunflower was mixed with bio-organic fertilizer with the aid of effective microorganisms within 15 days. The ratio of fermented plant juice was; 5 kg sunflower per 16 liters of water and 2 kg of bio-organic fertilizer applied 2 weeks after planting.

Planting Materials and Treatments

Rooted stem cuttings were planted at a distance of 30 cm x 30 cm between hills and rows.

The treatments were the following:

(10)

Code Entry Source

E1 MLUSA 5 Maine, USA

E2 MLUSA 8 Maine, USA

E3 Granola (check) CIP, Lima, Peru E4 Ganza (check) CIP, Lima, Peru

Experimental Lay-out

The experiment was laid-out following the randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications.

Cultural Management Practices

Cultural practices such as hilling up, weeding, and irrigation were uniformly done in all entries. All practices were considered organic, that is , no application of synthetic chemicals and fertilizers.

Data Analysis

All quantitative data were analyzed using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of difference among the treatment means were tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.

Data Gathered

A. Agro-Climatic Data. Temperature, relative humidity, rainfall were recorded during the conduct of study.

(11)

B. Soil Chemical Properties. Soil samples were taken from the experimental area before and right after harvest. The organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium content of the soil and pH were analyzed at the Department of Agriculture, Soils Laboratory, Pacdal, Baguio City.

C. Vegetative Characters

1. Plant survival (%). The number of plants that survived were counted at 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after planting (DAP) and calculated using the formula:

Number of Plants Survived

% Plant Survival = x 100

Total Number of Plants Planted

2. Plant Height. Plant height was taken at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP using a meter stick.

3. Canopy cover. Canopy cover was gathered at 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAP using a wooden frame which measures 120 cm x 60 cm having equal size grid of 12 cm x 6 cm.

4. Plant vigor. Plants were rated at 30, 45, 50, 60, and 75 days DAP based on a rating scale by CIP (Gonzales et al., 2004):

Scale Description Reaction

5 Plants are strong with robust stem and highly vigorous leaves, light color to dark green in color.

4 Plants are moderately strong with robust moderately vigorous stem and leaves were light green in color.

3 Better than less vigorous vigorous 2 Plants are weak with few thin stems and less vigorous

leaves, pale.

(12)

1 Plants are weak with few stems and leaves, poor vigor very pale.

D. Reaction to Pest and Disease

1. Reaction to leaf miner. The reaction to leaf miner was recorded at 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAP using the following rating scale (CIP, 2001):

Scale Description Reaction

1 Leaf infected (1-20%) Highly Resistant

2 Infected (20-40%) Moderately Resistant

3 Moderately infected (41-60%) Susceptible

4 Severely infected (61-80%) Moderately Susceptible 5 Most Serious (81-100%) Very Susceptible

2. Reaction to late blight. Ratings was done at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP using a CIP (Henfling, 1987) rating scale as follows:

Blight Scale Description

1 1 No blight to be seen

01-1 2 Very few plants in larger treatment with lesions not more than 2 lesions 10m or row (+/-30 plants).

1.1-2 2 Up to 10 lesions per plant.

3.1-10 3 Up to 30 small lesions per plant or up to 1 inch

leaflets attacked.

10.1-24 4 Most plants are visibly attacked and 1 m 3leaflets infected. Multiple infections per leaflets.

5-4 5 Nearly every leaflets with lesion. Multiple infections per leaflets are common. Field or plot look green, but all plants are pots blighted.

(13)

50-74 6 Every plant blighted and half the leaf area destroyed by blight fields look green, flecked, and brown, blight is very obvious.

75-90 7 As previous but ¾ of each plant blighted. Lower branches may be overwhelmingly killed off, and the only green leaves, if any, are spindly due to extensive foliage loss, field looks neither brown nor green.

91-97 8 Some leaves and most stems are green, filed looks brown with some leaves patches.

97.1-99.9 9 Few green leaves almost all with blight lesions remain. Many stems lesions field look brown.

100 9 All leaves and stem dead.

Description: 1- highly resistant, 2-3- resistant, 4-5- moderately resistant, 6-7- moderately susceptible, 8-9- susceptible.

3. Frost Injury. This was recorded at 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAP using the following scale (CIP, 2003):

Scale Description Reaction

1 No apparent injury Highly Resistant 2 Injury confined to youngest leaves Moderately Resistant

3 Some older leaves exhibiting injury Susceptible

4 Over 50% of the leaves injured Moderately Susceptible 5 Over 90% of the leaves injured Very Susceptible

(14)

E. Yield and Yield Components

1. Number and weight of marketable tubers per hill (g). All tubers that were of marketable size, not malformed, free from cuts, cracks and with out more than 10%

greening of the total surface was counted and weighed at harvest.

2. Number and weight of non-marketable tubers per hill (g). This was obtained by counting and weighing all tubers that are malformed, damaged by pests and diseases and those with more than 10% greening.

3. Total yield per hill (g). This was the sum of the weight of marketable and non- marketable tubers per hill.

4. Total yield per 5m2 (kg). This was the sum of the weight of marketable and non-marketable tubers per plot.

F. ROCE. This was computed using the formula:

Net Income

ROCE = x 100

Total Cost of Production

G. Post Harvest Characteristics

1. Dry matter content of tubers. Twenty gram tubers were weighed and sliced into cubes and oven dried at 80oC for 24 hours. This was recorded and computed using the following formula:

Dry Matter = 100% - % moisture content

Fresh Weight - Oven Dry Weight

Where: % moisture content = x 100

Fresh Weight

(15)

2. Sugar Content (°Brix). This was taken by extracting the juice of 20 g potato tubers and read on a digital refractometer.

H. Documentation of Practices. All cultural management practices done on organic potato production such as fertilizer application, crop protection, hilling-up, harvesting and other practices were documented. Documentation was done through the use of digicam.

(16)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Agroclimatic Data

Table 1 shows the temperature, relative humidity and rainfall during the conduct of the study. Result shows that temperature ranged from 11 °C to 22.6 °C. The lowest temperature was recorded in January while the highest was recorded in March. High relative humidity was observed in March. The average temperature of 17°C to 22 °C is best for potato production (HARRDEC, 1996).

Maximum yield are normally obtained when the average temperature throughout the growing season ranges between 15-18 °C (NPRCRTC, 1998).

Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity and rainfall during the conduct of the study

MONTH TEMPERATURE (°C)

MIN MAX

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

RAINFALL (mm)

November 12.1 21.3 56 0.6

December 11.9 21.4 55 1.8

January 11.0 20.8 53 3.1

February 12.4 22.6 53 4.8

March 15.1 23.8 58 4.5

(17)

Chemical Soil Properties

Table 2 shows that there was a decrease of soil pH after planting showing that the place where the study was conducted may favor in the growth of potato since the optimum pH for potato production ranged from 5.6 to 6.5.

The organic matter present in the soil had increased after planting which might be due to the compost application during the conduct of study. Both potassium and phosphorus decreased after planting which might indicate the high nutritive requirements of the potato plants.

Table 2. Chemical properties of the soil taken before and after planting

SAMPLING TIME

PH ORGANIC

MATTER (%)

PHOSPHORUS (ppm)

POTASSIUM (ppm)

Before planting 6.39 2.5 380 472

After planting 5.99 4.0 330 234

(18)

Percent Survival

Table 3 shows the percent survival of the potato entries taken at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP. Highly significant differences among the entries were observed. Ganza obtained the highest percent survival at 30 DAP followed by MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8. Granola obtained the lowest percent survival. Generally, results show that there was a decrease in percent survival at 45 DAP up to 75 DAP except for Ganza which maintained its survival.

The survival percentage of the entries could be attributed to cutworm infestation and unfavorable weather conditions such as low temperature during the conduct of the study. Cutworms were observed to cause damage by cutting the stems of the plants.

Table 3. Plant survival of potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting

ENTRY PLANT SURVIVAL (%)

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 64b 50bc 48bc 39bc

MLUSA 8 67b 62ab 63ab 19ab

Ganza (check) 96a 93a 91a 91a

Granola (check) 43c 23c 14c 7c

CV (%) 11.03 9.30 26.89 25.73

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

(19)

Plant Height

Table 4 shows significant differences on the plant height of the potato entries at 30 and 45 DAP. Ganza produced the tallest plants followed by MLUSA 5. Significant differences were also observed at 60 and 75 DAP and still Ganza was the tallest. Granola produced the shortest plants at 60 and 75 DAP.

The differences on the height of potato entries could be attributed to their genotypic traits and might also be affected by the environmental conditions during the conduct of the study.

Table 4. Plant height of potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting

ENTRY PLANT HEIGHT (cm)

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 4.0b 5.7c 8.3ab 11.7a

MLUSA 8 3.0c 5.3b 7.3b 12.0a

Ganza (check) 5.0a 8.7a 11.7a 15.3a

Granola (check) 3.3c 5.7c 4.7b 6.0b

CV (%) 7.53 10.19 28.26 24.77

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

(20)

Canopy Cover

Table 5 shows the canopy cover of the potato entries. Ganza had the widest canopy followed by MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 at 30 DAP. There was an increase in canopy cover of all entries at 45 DAP. At 60 DAP, all of the entries except Granola had decreased in canopy.

The decrease of canopy cover of the entries might due to the occurrence of late blight incidence, frost injury and the aging of the plants.

Table5. Canopy cover of potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting

ENTRY CANOPY COVER

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 10b 21b 27b 18b

MLUSA 8 9b 20b 26b 20b

Ganza (check) 20a 41a 56a 63a

Granola (check) 8b 11b 6c 2c

CV (%) 13.82 26.36 24.99 24.29

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

(21)

Plant Vigor

Table 6 shows the plant vigor of the potato entries at 30, 45 60 and 75 DAP.

Ganza, MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 were found to be moderately vigorous while Granola was found to be vigorous. The same result was found by Imarga (2009) that MLUSA 5 was moderately vigorous at 30 DAP. Figure 1-4 shows the different entries at 30 DAP.

Ganza was found to be highly vigorous at 45 to 75 DAP. MLUSA 8 and MLUSA 5 were moderately vigorous at 45 DAP and vigorous at 60 and 75 DAP.

The higher vigor of Ganza might due to its characteristic of bigger leaves than that of the other entries. There was a decreased vigor on the other entries which might be due to the occurrence of late blight and frost causing early senescence of the plants.

Table 6. Plant vigor of potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting

ENTRY PLANT VIGOR

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 4a 3bc 3b 3b

MLUSA 8 4a 4ab 3b 3b

Ganza- (check) 4a 5a 5a 5a

Granola-(check) 3b 2c 1c 1c

CV (%) 7.53 19.63 21.70 26.19

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

Legend: 5- Highly vigorous, 4- moderately vigorous, 3- vigorous, 2- less vigorous, 1- poor vigor

(22)

Figure 2 Granola at 30 DAP Figure 1 Ganza at 30 DAP

Figure 3 MLUSA 5 at 30 DAP

Figure 4 MLUSA 8 at 30 DAP

(23)

Leaf Miner Incidence

Table 7 shows the leaf miner incidence of the four potato entries at 30, 45, 60, and 75 DAP. All the potato entries were found to be highly resistant at 30 and 45 DAP except for MLUSA 8 which was found to be moderately resistant at 45 DAP. MLUSA 5 was found to be susceptible while the other entries were found to be moderately resistant at 75 DAP. Simongo et al., (2006) also found that Ganza was resistant to leaf miner.

Table 7. Leaf miner incidence of the potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting planting

ENTRY LEAF MINER INCIDENCE

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 Highly resistant

Highly resistant

Moderately resistant

Susceptible

MLUSA 8 Highly resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately Resistant Ganza (check) Highly

resistant

Highly resistant

Highly resistant

Moderately Resistant Granola (check) Highly

resistant

Highly resistant

Highly resistant

Moderately Resistant

(24)

Late Blight Incidence

Table 8 shows the late blight ratings of the potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP. Ganza, MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 were moderately resistant at 30, 45 and 60 DAP.

Granola was observed to be moderately susceptible at 30 and 45 DAP and susceptible at 60 and 75 DAP.

The resistance of the entries could be due to their genotypic characteristics that can tolerate late blight incidence. Granola is susceptible to late blight as reported in past studies by Tad-awan et al.,(2008) .

Tad-awan et al.,(2008) also found out that Ganza was moderately resistant in different locations in the highlands.

Table 8. Late blight incidence of the potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting planting

ENTRY LATE BLIGHT RATING

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 Moderately resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately Resistant MLUSA 8 Moderately

resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately Resistant Ganza (check) Moderately

resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately Resistant Granola (check) Moderately

susceptible

Moderately susceptible

Moderately susceptible

Moderately susceptible

(25)

Frost Injury Rating

Table 9 shows the frost injury rating of the four potato entries. Ganza was found to be highly resistant to frost at 30 to 75 DAP. MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 were found to be moderately resistant at 45 to 75 DAP. Granola was found to be moderately susceptible at 30 and 45 DAP and susceptible at 60 and 75 DAP.

The occurrence of frost injury could be due to low temperature.

Table 9. Frost injury of the potato entries at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after planting

ENTRY FROST INJURY RATING

30 DAP 45 DAP 60 DAP 75 DAP

MLUSA 5 Susceptible Moderately resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately Resistant MLUSA 8 Susceptible Moderately

resistant

Moderately resistant

Moderately Resistant Ganza (check) Highly

resistant

Highly resistant

Highly resistant

Highly Resistant Granola (check) Moderately

susceptible

Moderately susceptible

Susceptible Susceptible

(26)

Number of Marketable and Non-marketable Tubers per Hill

Table 10 shows the total number of marketable and non-marketable tubers of the potato entries. There were significant differences among the potato entries on marketable tubers. It was observed that Ganza produced the highest number of marketable tubers followed by MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 while Granola produced the lowest.

There were no significant differences among the entries of potato on the non- marketable tubers. It was observed that MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 produced the highest number of non-marketable tubers followed by Ganza while Granola produced the lowest number.

The high number of tubers produced by Ganza could be due to high percent survival, highly vigorous plants at vegetative stage and resistance to late blight. Low yield of some entries could be due to low percent survival, low vigor of plants and susceptibility to late blight.

Table 10. Number of marketable and non-marketable tubers of the potato entries

NUMBER OF TUBERS PER HILL

ENTRY MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE

MLUSA 5 3b 4a

MLUSA 8 3b 4a

Ganza (check) 4a 2c

Granola (check) 2c 3b

CV (%) 18.18 14.50

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

(27)

Weight of Marketable and Non-marketable Tubers per Hill

Table 11 shows the total weight of marketable and non-marketable tubers of the four potato entries. Highly significant differences among the entries were observed on both marketable and non-marketable tubers of the potato entries. Ganza produced the heaviest marketable and non-marketable tubers followed by MLUSA 8 and MLUSA 5.

The high yield obtained from Ganza could be due to the fact that the check variety was recommended for organic production by Tad-awan et al. (2008).

Table 11. Weight of marketable and non-marketable tubers of the potato entries

YIELD/HILL ENTRY MARKETABLE

(g)

NON-MARKETABLE (g)

MLUSA 5 87b 12b

MLUSA 8 79bc 10b

Ganza (check) 118a 22a

Granola (check) 59c 10b

CV (%) 14.54 24.03

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

(28)

Yield per Hill and Yield per 5m2

Table 12 shows highly significant differences among the four potato entries in terms of yield per hill. Ganza produced the highest yield of 140 g followed by MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 (100 g and 89 g, respectively). Granola produced the lowest yield which might be due to the effect of low temperature during the conduct of study.

The four potato entries significantly differed on the total yield per 5m2 with Ganza producing the highest. Figures 5-8 show the harvested tubers of the different potato entries.

Table 12. Yield per hill and yield per 5m2 of the potato entries

ENTRY AVERAGE YIELD

(g/hill)

TOTAL YIELD (kg/5m2)

MLUSA 5 100b 2.00b

MLUSA 8 89bc 1.78bc

Ganza (check) 140a 2.80a

Granola (check) 69c 1.37c

CV (%) 15.22 15.22

Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)

(29)

Figure 5 Harvested Ganza tubers

Figure 6 Harvested Granola tubers

Figure 7 Harvested MLUSA 5 tubers

(30)

Dry Matter and Sugar Content

Table 13 shows the dry matter and sugar content of the four potato entries. There were no significant differences for both parameters of the four entries. However, Ganza obtained the highest dry matter content followed by MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8. All the entries had the same sugar content of 3.6 °Brix.

Table 13. Dry matter and sugar content of the potato entries

ENTRY DRY MATTER CONTENT

(%)

SUGAR CONTENT (°Brix)

MLUSA 5 20 3.6

MLUSA 8 20 3.6

Ganza (check) 22 3.6

Granola (check) 17 3.6

(31)

Return on Cash Expense

Positive ROCE was obtained from Ganza followed by MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8.

Granola obtained a negative ROCE.

Table 14. Return on cash expense of the potato entries

ENTRY COST OF

PRODUCTION (Php)

GROSS INCOME

(Php)

NET INCOME

(Php)

ROCE (%)

MLUSA 5 125.17 159.2 33.5 26.8

MLUSA 8 125.17 142.4 17.2 13.8

Ganza (check) 125.17 224 1.8 78.9

Granola (check) 125.17 109.6 -15.6 -12.5

(32)

Documentation of Cultural Practices on Organic Potato Production at Loo, Buguias

Preparation of Liquid Organic Fertilizer. The materials for making compost are sunflower leaves, 2 kg of bio-organic fertilizer and 16 liters of water with the aid of effective microorganisms. The sunflower leaves are chopped and mixed thoroughly in 16 liters of water then added with effective microorganism (Figures 9-12).

Figure 9 Chopping of sunflower leaves and mixing in water

Figure 10 Mixing the sunflower leaves and water with effective microorganism

(33)

Figure 11 Stirring and proper covering of compost

Figure 12 Liquid fertilizer ready for application

(34)

Land Preparation and Application of Bio-organic Fertilizer. Land preparation and application of bio-organic fertilizer is done 15 days before planting at a rate of 5 kg per 5m2 (Figure 13).

Figure 13 Land preparation and application of bio-organic fertilizer

(35)

Figure 14 Mixing of compost and lay-outing

Planting. Planting of stem cuttings is at a distance of 30 cm x 30 cm between hills and rows (Figure 15).

Figure 15 Planting of potato rooted stem cuttings

(36)

Irrigation. Irrigation is done with the use of sprinkler three times a week at 4 hours per station (Figure 16).

Figure 16 Irrigation with the use of sprinkler

Application of Liquid Fertilizer. Application of liquid fertilizer is at 15 days after planting. The application is 100 ml per hill at 15 days after planting and 22 DAP (Figure 17).

Figure 17 Application of liquid fertilizer

(37)

Crop Protection. Crop protection against insect pest is done by spraying once a month with 2 cups of wood vinegar mixed with 16 liters of water and use of traps (Figures 18-21). Wood vinegar is a liquid substance that is obtained when organic materials such as wood, coconut shell, bamboo, grass, and other plants are placed in a heating chamber. Wood vinegar contains organic substances such as organic acids, phenol substances, carbon substances, alcohol, neutral materials, and base acidic substances.

Insect traps are made up of yellow plastic applied with grease and installed at the end of each plot (Figure 20).

Figure 18 Materials used in spraying (2 cups of wood vinegar per 16 liters of water)

(38)

Figure 19 Spraying

Figure 20 Applying of grease to plastic

(39)

Figure 21 Insect traps installed at the end of the plot

Hilling-up. Hilling-up is done at 30 and 45 days after planting using a grab hoe (Figures 22-23).

Figure 22 Hilling-up at 30 days after planting

(40)

Figure 23 Hilling-up at 45 days after planting

Harvesting. Harvesting of the potato tubers is done using pointed stick as a digging material (Figure 24).

Figure 24 Harvesting using a pointed stick

(41)

Figure 25 Gathering of harvested tubers

(42)

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The study was conducted at, Loo, Buguias, Benguet from November 2009 to March 2010 to evaluate potato entries for organic production; determine the best performing potato entries in terms of yield; and resistance to pests; determine the profitability of growing organic potato entries for organic production and document the practices on organic potato production.

Ganza obtained the highest percent survival, exhibited the tallest plants, highest canopy cover, and highly vigorous plants at 75 DAP. MLUSA 5, MLUSA 8 and Ganza were rated moderately resistant to late blight at 75 DAP. Ganza was rated highly resistant and MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 were rated moderately resistant to frost injury at 60 and 75 DAP. All of the entries were moderately resistant to leaf miner. Ganza produced the heaviest marketable and non-marketable tubers and had the highest ROCE.

Conclusion

Potato entries MLUSA 5 and MLUSA 8 produced marketable tubers, were resistant to late blight and had a positive ROCE under organic production.

Recommendations

Under the conditions of the study, MULSA 5 and MLUSA 8 can be recommended for organic production at Loo, Buguias, Benguet. Further evaluation of the potato entries should be conducted to achieve stability in yield and resistance to pest and diseases.

(43)

LITERATURE CITED

AGUIRRE, V. 2006. Growth and yield of promising potato entries in an organic farm at La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University (BSU), La Trinidad, Benguet.

GAYOMBA, H. 2006. Growth and yield of promising potato genotypes grown in organic farm at Sinipsip, Buguias. BS. Thesis. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 23-24.

HARRDEC, 1996. High Land Potato Technoguide (3rd edition). Benguet state University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-5.

IMARGA, B. 2009. Growth and yield of potato entries under organic production at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. xi, 19.

LEM-EW, J. 2007. Growth and yield of organically grown potato entries in two locations of Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P.52.

MADDER, P. and FLIEBACH, A. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science V. 296, n. 5573. P. 321.

MONTES. F. 2006. Growth and yield of potato genotypes in organic farm at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. xi.

MOSLEY, 2003. The Potato Plant. Potandon Produce L.L.C. Retrieved November 2009 from http://www.potandon.com/ss_potatoes_plant.htm

NEWSOME, J. 2009. Benefits of using Organic Fertilizer Retrieved November 2009 from http://www.gardenguides.com/78504-benefits-using-organic-fertilizer.html NORTHERN PHILIPPINES ROOT CROPS RESEARCH TRAINING CENTER, 1998.

Potato Production Guide. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 2- 9.

NSAI, 2005. National Sustainable Agriculture Information. Potatoes organic production and marketing. Retrieved January 2010 from http://attra.ncat.org/attra- pub/potatoes.html#organic

PCARRD, 2006. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development. About Organic Farming. Retrieved November 2009 from http://www.pcarrd.dost.gov.ph/ofin/about.htm

SIMONGO, D., GONZALES, I., and BALOG-AS, F. 2006. Highland Potato Cultivars.

Pp. 9-10.

(44)

TAD-AWAN, B., SIMONGO, D., PABLO, J., SAGALLA, E.J., KISWA, C., SHAGOL, C. 2008. The potato varieties for organic production in different agro-ecological zones of the Philippine Highlands: Evaluation and Selection Through Participatory Approach. Journal of Nature Studies 7(2): P. 74.

(45)

APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1.Plant survival (%) of potato entries at 30 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 63 74 55 192 64b

MLUSA 8 60 68 73 201 67b

Ganza (check) 97 93 97 287 96a

Granola (check) 50 40 40 130 43c

TOTAL 270 275 265 810 68

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 12.500 6.250

Treatment 3 4169.667 1389.889 25.06** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 332.833 55.472

TOTAL 11 4515.000

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 11.03

(46)

Appendix Table 2.Plant survival (%) of potato entries at 45 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 33 80 36 149 50bc

MLUSA 8 30 75 80 185 62ab

Ganza (check) 97 90 93 280 93a

Granola (check) 25 27 17 69 23c

TOTAL 185 272 226 683 57

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 947.167 473.583

Treatment 3 7654.917 2551.639 7.53** 4.76 9.78 Error 6 2034.833 333.139

TOTAL 11 2034.833 339.139

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 9.30

(47)

Appendix Table 3.Plant survival (%) of potato entries at 60 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 30 83 30 143 48bc

MLUSA 8 20 87 83 190 63ab

Ganza (check) 93 87 93 273 91a

Granola (check) 10 17 0 27 14c

TOTAL 153 274 206 633 54

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 1839.500 919.750

Treatment 3 10544.917 3514.972 6.96** 4.76 9.78 Error 6 3027.833 504.639

TOTAL 11 15412.250

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 26.89

(48)

Appendix Table 4.Plant survival (%) of potato entries at 75 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

GANZA 30 63 25 118 39bc

GRANOLA 20 80 83 183 19ab

MLUSA 5 93 87 93 273 91a

MLUSA 8 7 6 0 13 7c

TOTAL 150 236 201 201 39

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 935.167 467.583

Treatment 3 11989.583 3996.528 9.61** 4.76 9.78 Error 6 2496.167 416.028

TOTAL 11 15420.167

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 25.73

(49)

Appendix Table 5.Plant height of potato entries at 30 DAP (cm)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 4 4 4 12 4b

MLUSA 8 3 3 3 9 3c

Ganza (check) 5 5 5 15 5a

Granola (check) 4 3 3 10 3.3c

TOTAL 16 15 15 46 3.8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 0.167 0.083

Treatment 3 7.000 2.333 28** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 0.500 0.083

TOTAL 11 7.667

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 7.53

(50)

Appendix Table 6.Plant height of potato entries at 45 DAP (cm)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 5 6 6 17 5.7c

MLUSA 8 5 6 5 16 5.3b

Ganza (check) 9 8 9 26 8.7a

Granola (check) 6 5 6 17 5.7c

TOTAL 25 25 26 76 6.4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 0.167 0.083

Treatment 3 22.000 7.333 17.60** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 2.500 0.417

TOTAL 11 24.667

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 10.19

(51)

Appendix Table 7.Plant height of potato entries at 60 DAP (cm)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 10 7 8 25 8.3ab

MLUSA 8 8 7 7 22 7.3b

Ganza (check) 12 10 13 35 11.7a

Granola (check) 8 6 0 14 4.7b

TOTAL 38 30 28 96 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 14.000 7.000

Treatment 3 75.333 25.111 4.92* 4.76 9.78

Error 6 30.667 5.111

TOTAL 11 120.000

* = Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 28.26

(52)

Appendix Table 8.Plant height of potato entries at 75 DAP (cm)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 12 12 11 35 11.7a

MLUSA 8 11 13 12 36 12a

Ganza (check) 15 15 16 46 15.3a

Granola (check) 10 8 0 18 6b

TOTAL 48 48 39 135 8.8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 13.500 6.750

Treatment 3 134.917 44.972 5.89* 4.76 9.78

Error 6 45.833 7.639

TOTAL 11 194.250

* = Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 24.77

(53)

Appendix Table 9.Canopy covers of potato entries at 30DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 10 12 9 31 10b

MLUSA 8 10 9 9 28 9b

Ganza (check) 18 23 20 61 20a

Granola (check) 9 7 8 24 8b

TOTAL 47 51 46 144 12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 3.500 1.750

Treatment 3 286.000 95.333 34.67** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 16.500 2.750

TOTAL 11 306.000

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 13.82

(54)

Appendix Table 10. Canopy covers of potato entries at 45 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 24 23 16 63 21b

MLUSA 8 13 22 25 60 20b

Ganza (check) 39 44 39 122 41a

Granola (check) 19 9 4 32 11b

TOTAL 95 98 84 277 23

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 27.167 13.583

Treatment 3 1431.583 477.194 12.89** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 222.167 37.028

TOTAL 11 1680.917

**= Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 26.36

(55)

Appendix Table 11. Canopy covers of potato entries at 60 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 13 41 28 82 27b

MLUSA 8 10 32 35 77 26b

Ganza (check) 57 55 55 167 56a

Granola (check) 10 8 0 18 6c

TOTAL 90 136 118 344 29

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 268.667 134.333

Treatment 3 3760.667 1253.556 13.54** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 555.333 92.556

TOTAL 11 4584.667

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 24.99

(56)

Appendix Table 12. Canopy covers of potato entries at 75 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 6 28 19 53 18b

MLUSA 8 6 27 28 61 20b

Ganza (check) 65 64 60 189 63a

Granola (check) 4 2 0 6 2c

TOTAL 81 121 107 309 26

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 206.000 103.000

Treatment 3 6138.917 2046.306 33.24** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 369.333 61.556

TOTAL 11 6714.250

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 24.29

(57)

Appendix Table 13. Plant vigor of potato entries at 30 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 4 4 4 12 4a

MLUSA 8 4 4 4 12 4a

Ganza (check) 4 5 4 13 4a

Granola (check) 3 3 3 9 3b

TOTAL 15 16 15 46 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 0.167 0.083

Treatment 3 3.000 1.000 12.0** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 0.500 0.083

TOTAL 11 3.667

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 7.53

(58)

Appendix Table 14. Plant vigor of potato entries at 45 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 4 2 9 3bc

MLUSA 8 3 4 4 11 4ab

Ganza (check) 5 5 5 15 5a

Granola (check) 2 2 3 7 2c

TOTAL 13 15 14 42 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 0.500 0.250

Treatment 3 11.667 3.889 8.24** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 2.833 0.472

TOTAL 11 15.000

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 19.63

(59)

Appendix Table 15. Plant vigor of potato entries at 60 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 4 4 9 3b

MLUSA 8 2 4 4 10 3b

Ganza (check) 5 5 5 15 5a

Granola (check) 1 1 0 2 1c

TOTAL 11 14 13 36 3

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 1.167 0.583

Treatment 3 29.667 9,889 20.94** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 2.833 0.472

TOTAL 11 33.667

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 21.70

(60)

Appendix Table 16. Plant vigor of potato entries at 75 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 2 4 3 9 3b

MLUSA 8 2 3 4 9 3b

Ganza (check) 5 5 5 15 5a

Granola (check) 1 1 0 2 1c

TOTAL 10 13 12 35 3

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 1.167 0.583

Treatment 3 28.250 9.417 16.14** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 3.500 0.583

TOTAL 11 32.917

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 26.19

(61)

Appendix Table 17. Leaf miner incidence of potato entries at 30 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 1 1 1 3 1

MLUSA 8 1 1 1 3 1

Ganza (check) 1 1 1 3 1

Granola (check) 1 1 1 3 1

TOTAL 4 4 4 12 1

Appendix Table 18. Leaf miner incidence of potato entries at 45 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 1 1 1 3 1

MLUSA 8 2 2 1 5 2

Ganza (check) 1 1 1 3 1

Granola (check) 1 2 1 4 1

TOTAL 5 6 4 15 1

(62)

Appendix Table 19. Leaf miner incidence of potato entries at 60 DAP

ENTRY

BLOCK

TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 2 2 2 6 2

MLUSA 8 2 2 2 6 2

Ganza (check) 1 1 2 4 1

Granola (check) 2 2 0 4 1

TOTAL 7 7 6 20 2

Appendix table 20. Leaf miner incidence of potato entries at 75 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 2 3 8 3

MLUSA 8 3 2 2 7 2

Ganza (check) 2 2 2 6 2

Granola (check) 3 3 0 6 2

TOTAL 11 9 7 27 2

(63)

Appendix Table 21. Late blight incidence of potato entries at 30 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 4 5 5 14 5

MLUSA 8 5 5 5 15 5

Ganza (check) 4 4 4 12 4

Granola (check) 4 5 8 17 6

TOTAL 17 19 22 58 5

Appendix Table 22. Late blight incidence of potato entries at 45 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 5 5 5 15 5

MLUSA 8 5 4 4 13 4

Ganza (check) 4 4 4 12 4

Granola (check) 7 7 8 23 7

TOTAL 21 20 21 68 5

(64)

Appendix Table 23. Late blight incidence of potato entries at 60 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 5 4 4 13 4

MLUSA 8 5 5 4 14 5

Ganza (check) 4 4 4 12 4

Granola (check) 9 9 0 18 6

TOTAL 23 22 12 57 5

Appendix Table 24. Late blight incidence of potato entries at 75 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 5 4 4 13 4

MLUSA 8 5 5 4 14 5

Ganza (check) 4 4 4 12 4

Granola (check) 9 9 0 18 6

TOTAL 23 23 12 57 5

(65)

Appendix Table 25. Frost injury rating of potato entries at 30 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 2 3 8 3

MLUSA 8 3 3 2 8 3

Ganza (check) 1 1 1 3 1

Granola (check) 4 4 4 12 4

TOTAL 11 10 10 31 3

Appendix Table 26. Frost injury rating of potato entries at 45 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 2 2 7 2

MLUSA 8 3 2 2 7 2

Ganza (check) 1 1 1 3 1

Granola (check) 4 4 5 13 4

TOTAL 11 9 10 30 2

(66)

Appendix Table 27. Frost injury rating of potato entries at 60 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 2 2 3 7 2

MLUSA 8 2 2 2 6 2

Ganza (check) 1 1 1 3 1

Granola (check) 5 5 0 10 3

TOTAL 10 10 6 26 2

Appendix Table 28. Frost injury rating of potato entries at 75 DAP

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 2 2 7 3

MLUSA 8 2 2 2 6 2

Ganza (check) 1 1 1 3 1

Granola (check) 5 5 0 10 3

TOTAL 11 10 5 26 2

(67)

Appendix Table 29. Number of marketable tubers per hill

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3 3 3 9 3b

MLUSA 8 2 3 3 8 3b

Ganza (check) 4 3 4 11 4a

Granola (check) 2 1 2 5 2c

TOTAL 11 10 12 33 3

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 0.500 0.250

Treatment 3 6.250 2.083 8.33* 4.76 9.78

Error 6 1.500 0.250

TOTAL 11 8.250

* = Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 18.18

(68)

Appendix Table 30. Number of non-marketable tubers per hill

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 4 3 4 11 4a

MLUSA 8 4 4 4 12 4a

Ganza (check) 2 3 2 7 2c

Granola (check) 3 3 3 9 3b

TOTAL 13 13 13 39 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 0.000 0.000

Treatment 3 4.917 1.639 7.37ns 4.76 9.78

Error 6 1.333 0.222

TOTAL 11 6.250

ns = Not Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 14.50

(69)

Appendix Table 31. Weight of marketable tubers per hill (g)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 96 68 98 264 87b

MLUSA 8 74 69 94 237 79bc

Ganza (check) 140 90 125 355 118a

Granola (check) 60 29 88 177 59c

TOTAL 370 256 405 1,033 86

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE OF VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 3035.167 1517.583

Treatment 3 5475.583 1825.192 11.70* 4.76 9.78 Error 6 936.176 156.028

TOTAL 11

* = Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 14.54

(70)

Appendix Table 32. Weight of non- marketable tubers per hill (g)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 14 14 9 37 12b

MLUSA 8 11 9 11 31 1b

Ganza (check) 26 18 21 65 22a

Granola (check) 9 6 14 29 10b

TOTAL 60 47 55 162 14

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 21.500 10.750

Treatment 3 278.333 92.778 8.81* 4.76 9.78

Error 6 63.167 10.528

TOTAL 11 363.000

*= Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 24.03

(71)

Appendix Table 33. Total y yield per hill (g)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 110 82 107 299 99.6b

MLUSA 8 85 78 105 268 89.3bc

Ganza (check) 166 108 146 420 140a

Granola (check) 69 35 102 206 68.7c

TOTAL 130 303 460 1193 143.7

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01 Block 2 3473.167 1736.583

Treatment 3 8082.917 2694.306 11.78** 4.76 9.78 Error 6 1372.833 228.806

TOTAL 11 12928.917

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 15.22

(72)

Appendix Table 34. Total yield per 5m2 (kg)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 2.20 1.64 2.14 5.98 1.99b

MLUSA 8 1.70 1.56 2.10 5.36 178bc

Ganza (check) 3.32 2.16 2.92 8.40 2.80a Granola (check) 1.38 0.70 2.04 4.12 1.37c

TOTAL 8.60 6.06 9.20 25.56 1.98

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 1.389 0.695

Treatment 3 3.233 1.078 11.78** 4.76 9.78

Error 6 0.549 0.092

TOTAL 11 5.172

** = Highly Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 15.22

(73)

Appendix Table 35. Dry matter content of potato tubers

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 20 20 20 60 20

MLUSA 8 20 20 20 60 20

Ganza (check) 20 25 20 65 22

Granola (check) 15 15 20 50 17

TOTAL 75 75 80 285 20

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SOURCE OF

VARIATION

DEGREES OF FREEDOM

SUM OF SQUARES

MEAN SQUARE

COMPUTED F

TABULATED F

0.05 0.01

Block 2 4.167 2.083

Treatment 3 39.583 13.194 2.71ns 3.59 6.22

Error 6 29.167 4.861

TOTAL 11 72.917

ns = Not Significant Coefficient of Variation (%) = 11.26

(74)

Appendix Table 36. Sugar content of potato tubers (°Brix)

ENTRY BLOCK TOTAL MEAN

I II III

MLUSA 5 3.6 3.6 3.6 10.8 3.6

MLUSA 8 3.6 3.6 3.6 10.8 3.6

Ganza (check) 3.6 3.6 3.6 10.8 3.6

Granola (check) 3.6 3.6 3.6 10.8 3.6

TOTAL 14.8 14.8 14.8 43.2 3.6

Pigura

Table 1 shows the temperature, relative humidity and rainfall during the conduct  of the study
Table 2 shows that there was a decrease of soil  pH after planting showing that the  place where the study was conducted may favor in the growth of potato since the  optimum pH for potato production ranged from 5.6 to 6.5
Table 3 shows the percent survival of the potato entries taken at 30, 45, 60 and 75  DAP
Table 4 shows significant differences on the plant height of the potato entries at  30 and 45 DAP
+7

Mga Sanggunian

NAUUGNAY NA DOKUMENTO

There were significant differences observed in number of flower per plant, weight of marketable fresh pod yield and total fresh yield per plot among the selected advanced lines of