BIBLIOGRAPHY
DAGUYAM, NELIE B. APRIL 2006. Growth and Seed Yield of Bush
Snapbean as Affected by Different Soil Amendment. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Danilo P. Padua, PhD.
ABSTRACT
The sudy was conducted to identify bush snapbean variety that is most responsive
to a certain kind of soil amendment; determine which soil amendment would give the
highest seed yield of bush snapbean; and determine the interaction of soil amendment and
different varieties of bush snapbean.

Based on the study, Red Kidney bean was the most responsive to carbonized rice
hull as soil amendment in terms of pod width, marketable seed yield per plot and
produced the highest CRA. The use of coconut coir dust enhanced earlier seed
emergence, days to flowering, taller plants at 90 DAP, higher number of seeds per pod
and higher seed yield. The interaction of Contender on coconut coir dust were
significantly taller plants than the other treatments at 90 DAP, and the number of seeds
observed on Landmark in combination with carbonized rice hull.

With the good performance of Red Kidney bean, it is highly recommended for
seed production under La Trinidad, Benguet condition for higher return on cash expenses.
Likewise, coconut coir dust as soil amendment is also recommended for taller plants,

---

higher marketable seed yield thus, higher CRA “Lipstikan” with coconut coir dust as soil
amendment could be an alterative choice.

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS










Page

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Bean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
Organic Matter and Soil Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4
Effect of Compost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
Effect of Coconut Coir Dust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
Effect of Dolomite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
Effect of Carbonized Rice Hull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8
Effect of Soil Amendments on Soil Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14
Soil Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15
Days to Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
Days to Flowering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
Plant Height at Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18
iii

---

Length of Pods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19
Width of Pods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21
Number of Seeds Per Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22
Marketable Dry Beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23
Non-Marketable Bean Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25
Seed Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26
Reaction to Bean Fly and Bean Rust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26
Cost and return analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36

iv

---

1

INTRODUCTION



Bush snapbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an annual season crop that is grown in a
wide range of soil condition. It is grown for its fleshy, immature pods as it reaches its
maturity from 50 to 60 days depending on climate, weather and soil conditions they are
exposed to (Anonymous, 2004).

Snapbean belongs to the Leguminoseae Family that is excellent source of protein
and vitamins, and one of the most cash crop of the highland people. This can contribute
to the energy and body building nutrients for human and easily grown for both fresh
market and processing even though they may not require intensive management (Swiader
and Ware, 2002).

The nutrient quality of bush beans partly contributes to the solution of
malnutrition problem in the country. Aside from the benefit it directly provides to
farmers, it is also beneficial in maintaining soil productivity due to the capacity of its
roots to fix atmospheric nitrogen in symbiosis with bacteria to make the soil fertile.

The physical and chemical properties of the soil are considered major factors
affecting plant growth and development. These are water holding capacity, porosity,
bulk density, particle density and soil pH. A knowledge on the maintenance of these soil
properties leads to improved production (Cuyahon, 1962).

Most agricultural soils that are continuously grown become acidic making them
deficient in calcium. Hence, there is a need to supply lime to the soil to correct the
acidity and to supply the calcium ions needed by the plants. The addition of lime
increases the soil pH of the soil making it more favorable for microbial growth. It also
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

2

improves the physical property of the soil such as granulation, aeration and increased
water holding capacity of the soil.

Common bean is an important crop. Thus, production should be increased by
some producers, practices like the use of good variety and soil amendments should be
done to increase production. Successful production of this crop depends much on the
adaptability of the variety used, fertility of the soil and cultural management practices
employed.

At present, only few farmers are knowledgeable on the good quality and high
yielding varieties of snap bean. In this case, there is a need to determine the best variety
that is adapted with soil amendments.

These soil amendments include the use of dolomite, coconut coir dust compost
and carbonized rice hull. Dolomite is a natural mineral composed of Ca and Mg
carbonates and is widely used as a liming material and as an ingredient in mixed
fertilizers. It is used to reduce or correct soil acidity, promote beneficial effects on
microbial activity, supplies both Ca and Mg as plant food, transforms “dead soil” or “soil
poisons” to harmless compound, increase sugar content of fruits and vegetables, protect
plant from hypomagnesaemia, prevent chlorosis (yellowish coloring of leaves as a result
of deficient chlorophyll production), increases crop yield per hectare thus securing
highest return and profits, and eliminate the problem of infertile soil and less productive
soil due to acidity (Swerdt, 2003).

Compost fertilizers are also more economical to the farmers than inorganic
fertilizers because they don’t need too much money to buy inorganic fertilizers fort heir
plants. Instead, they make compost to save money (Marquez, 1998).
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

3


Coconut coir dust maintains excellent air porosity even when saturated and gives
better crop with faster developing roots and more flowers and fruits per plant when used
correctly (Evans, 2003).

Carbonized rice hull and coconut coir dust can be incorporated in the soil and it
may supply some nutrients to plants, but these are applied mainly as soil conditioner.

The study was conducted to identify bush snapbean variety that is most
responsive to certain kind of soil amendment; determine which soil amendment would
give the highest seed yield of bush snapbean; and determine the interaction of soil
amendments and different varieties of bush snapbeans.

The study was conducted at the Benguet State University Experimental Station at
Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2005 to February 2006.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

4

REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Bean

Snapbean is either bushy or viny leguminous plant. The bushy type is
determinate in growth habit and the stem elongation ceases when the terminal flower
racemes have developed (Martin and Leonard, 1979). Purseglove (1978) stated that
dwarf or bush cultivars which do not require support are early maturing while the
climbing or pole cultivars which require support take longer periods to mature and have a
longer bearing period.

Kudan (1991) reported that the maturity of seed pods starts at 60 days from
planting under La Trinidad condition. In warmer areas, it is earlier to mature while in
higher elevations takes longer with cooler temperature. Harvesting is dependent on the
variety used, location and temperature of the area.

Organic Matter and Soil Amendments


Parnes (1986) claimed that organic matter is the principal source of nitrogen,
phosphorous, and sulfur become available as the organic matter continuous to
decompose. Most of the calcium, magnesium and potassium in decaying organic residue
are discarded by the soil organism during the first stages of decomposition and these
nutrients are quickly available to plants. Organic matter through its effect on the
conditions of the soil increases the amount of water available for plant growth.
Experiment from IRRI showed that carbonated rice hull in whatever form increases
nitrogen content of the soil. Soil high in organic matter allows little or no soil-borne
diseases of the oxygen and ethylene cycle in the soil.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

5

Not only does humus confer immunity to plan__pest and diseases, it also
improves the quality of crops, a characteristic that has a very definite commercial value
(Abadilla, 1982).
Erasquin (1981) reported that soil for vegetable production should be rich in
organic matter through sustained application of decomposed saw dust and other type of
plant residues that are converted to useful soil amendment. Such soil amendments that
the saw dust contains about 1.69% phosphoric acid and 6.99% of potash.
When undecomposed sawdust is mixed with the soil, there is harmful effect on
particles by soil. However, this nitrogen in excess or that wax provided extends beyond
by first season if no more than 3 to 4 tons of dry material per acre added to the soil.
Crockett (1987) stated that organic matter opens up non-porous clays to improve soil
physical and chemical properties favorable for root growth. Soil amendments are needed
in very porous soils to retain moisture and proper light penetration; and in sandy soils to
help in retaining moisture and nutrients. Reduces fluctuation in soil pH, improves soil
aeration, facilitates the activities of microorganisms and serve as additional source of
nutrients for plants (Vander Wertt, 1997).
Marcelino (1995) stated that organic fertilizer supplies some amount of the
nutrient requirements of the crop and promotes favorable soil properties such as
granulation, efficient aeration, easy root penetration and improved water holding capacity
of the soil.

Effect of Compost

Soil for vegetable production should be rich in organic matter (Pataras, 1984). He
mentioned that the best way to achieve this compost is by garden compost, manures and
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

6

other farm green manures converted to useful soil amendment which when used in farm
can improve soil structure making it ideal for vegetable production. Similarly, Andrew
(1947) claimed that compost of plant residues is excellent source of organic matter as a
soil amendment.

Compost residues are low in nitrogen but high in cellulose and pentosan but thus,
they do not decompose easily (Jones, 1982). The dark brown organic matter has a high
buffer capacity over a considerable range of pH values, and it serves to stabilize soil
structure and improve water infiltration capacity of the soil.

Compost application replenishes soil organic matter or humus being depleted with
continuous cropping organism, consequently increasing the availability of nutrient that
plants feed on (Marquez, 1998).

Successive application of compost enriched the soil organic matter and improved
the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. Compost application builds
up the absorbing capacity of the soil. Soils with compost have less water evaporation
than the soil without compost applied. Therefore, it is recommended that in crop
production, it is highly desirable that compost should be applied to increase crop yield
and to minimize water evaporation from the soil (Sangatanan, 1990).

Effect of Coconut Coir Dust
Vavriva
(1992)
reported that coir dust is biodegradable and has superior structural
ability, water absorption ability and drainage, and cation exchange capacity compared to
either sphagnum peat or sedge peat. He also explained that small amount of nitrogen
draw down (N kept from availability to plants during decomposition of organic matter
amendments low in nitrogen) occurred with coir dust, but typical production fertilization
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

7

practices would likely compensate for the amount of nitrogen loss.

A study performed in the mid- 1990s at Iowa State University, researchers found
that a mix of 80% coir and 20% perlite provides the greater height of petunia and
marigold (Francois, 2003).

Savithri (1993) stated that high level of potassium present in coir dust proves
more a benefit than a detriment to plant growth. The higher pH of coir dust may allow
less time to add the coir dust based medium.
Effect of Dolomite
Dolomite
(CaCO3.MgCO3) is a natural mineral compost of 39% Mg carbonate
(equiv. to 11.5% Mg) and 5% Ca carbonate (equiv. to 24% Ca). The calcium content
neutralizes the acidity of the soil as a result of prolonged used of commercial fertilizer
and effective in reducing the number of empty pods while Mg content provides the
essential elements for the production of chlorophyll responsible for green coloring of
plant and protecting leaves from sunlight (Schwerdt, 2003).

Crops with Mg deficiency are likely observed with hypomagnesaemia or “grass
tetany” which is characterized by thinning of crop leaves and occurrence of losing
chlorophyll in the plant. This inevitably results to low crop yield. This deficiency can
only be overcome by treating soil with liming materials that has balance formula of Ca-
Mg element such as dolomite (Schwerdt, 2003).

Addition of dolomite will tremendously increase the benefit that could be
demanded from the coconut coir dust as calcium and magnesium become also available
for plant.

Dolomite is a natural mineral composed of Ca and Mg carbonates and is widely
used to remedy soil acidity. It promotes beneficial effect on microbial activities, supplies
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

8

both Ca and Mg as plant food, transform “dead soil” or soil “poisons” to harmless
compound, increase sugar content of fruits and vegetables, protect plant from
hypomagnesae, prevent chlorosis (yellowish coloring of leaves as a result of deficient
chlorophyll production), increases crop yield per hectare thus securing highest return and
profits, and eliminate the problem of soil infertility and low productivity due to acidity
(Cuyahon and Marquez, 2001).
Effect of Carbonized Rice Hull (CRH)

PHILRICE (2003) in their report “Hybrid Rice Production Technology” stated
that the application of 10-15 big of CRH for every 400m2 seedbed makes the soil loose
and friable. This will facilitate pulling of seedlings and minimize root damage. Rice
yield can be improved over and above yield obtained with regular use of fertilizer by
addition of rice hull ash. Rice hull can also serve as a moisture retention helper or as a
weed growth inhibitor in the soil. When rice hull is burned, the remaining ash serves as
mix for fertilizer. Finely ground rice hulls are also used as a component in commercial
mixed fertilizer. The rice hulls prevent caking of other fertilizer components.

In Japan, farmers had been using carbonized (partially burnt) rice hulls as soil
conditioner (Vien, 2003).

Tadeo (2003) claimed that CRH is an excellent soil conditioner. Continuous
application of CRH replenished the nutrients lost from the soil as a result of continuous
use of inorganic fertilizers. When applied to the soil, CRH artificially prolongs the
duration of sunlight that increases soil and water temperature. It has high air
permeability since it is porous and bulky, and has the ability to replenish air in the soil. It
is also a favorable habitat for beneficial microorganisms in the soil because it is sterilized
and free from disease organisms.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

9


Moreover, CRH is an excellent ingredient for bioorganic fertilizer, it can be
mixed with other farm and kitchen wastes plus microbial inoculants for making
bioorganic fertilizer.

Huang and Lin (2001) in their study “Growing Media for Arum Llilies” tested the
effectivity of bark compost, bagasse, coconut fiber and carbonized rice hull, mixed with
each other or with peat moss. The tested plants grew normally in all mixed media and
were comparable to those grown in peat moss only. Spathiphyllum petite, vegetatively
propagated pot plant showed that media mixed with carbonized rice hull produced plant
with more tillers.
Effect of Soil Amendments on Soil Properties

According to Carandang (1968) as stated by Mabazza (1997), soil for vegetable
production should be rich in organic matter through sustained application of decomposed
saw dust and other type of plant residue that the converted useful soil amendment such as
soil amendment improves soil structure is good for vegetable production. Furthermore,
he found that sawdust contains about 1.69% of phosphoric acid and 6.99% of potassium.

Pontailler (1964) cited that most soil contain important quantities of soil
amendments such as free lime, even if the soil is relatively poor in lime. Lime is useful,
however, not only providing the crop with nutrients, in which cases supplies added by
calcium fertilizers C nitrate of lime, cyanamide, copper phosphate, raw phosphates, slag,
etc. would be sufficient. Lime also affects the physical state of soil and influences
ploughing operation (Pandosen, 1980).
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

10

MATERIALS AND METHODS



An area of 400m2 was thoroughly prepared for planting. The area was divided
into 16 plots, each measuring 1m x 8 m. Three seeds were sown manually by hill method
with a distance of 30 cm between hills and rows.

The different soil amendments were applied and thoroughly mixed with the soil
10 days before planting to hasten decomposition and to enhance faster reaction with the
soil. The experiment was laid out following the two factor factorial in randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications.

Soil samples were taken before and after the study for analyses of the initial and
final pH, organic matter, nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous contents at the Bureau of
Soils, Pacdal, Baguio City.

The varieties (Factor A) and the different soil amendments (Factor B) were the
following:

Factor A: Variety


Factor B: Soil Amendments

V1 - Land Mark


S1 - Coconut coir dust (5t/ha)


V2 - Contender


S2- Carbonized rice hull (5t/ha)


V3 - Red Kidney Bean

S3 - Dolomite (2t/ha)

V4 - “Lipstikan”


S4 - Garden compost (6t/ha)

Data Gathered:
A. Meteorological Data. The following data were taken every week from the BSU-
PAGASA Agro Station:

1. Sunshine duration (minutes)

2. Relative humidity (%)
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

11


3. Air temperature (minimum and maximum; 0C)

4. Rainfall (mm)
B. Soil Chemical Properties


Soil samples taken before and after planting were brought to the Bureau of Soils
at Pacdal, Baguio City for analyses.

1. Soil pH

2. Organic matter content of the soil (%)

3. N (%), P and K (ppm)

C. Growth and Yield Data

1. Days to emergence. This was done by counting the days from planting to at
least 50% of plants/plot had fully emerged.

2. Days to flowering. This was done by counting the number of days from
planting to the time when at least 50% of plants/plot had fully opened flowers.

3. Plant height at 90 DAP (cm). This was taken by measuring the plant height
from the ground level to the tip of the youngest leaf of five sample plants using a meter
stick during the last harvest of dried pods.

4. Number of seeds per pod. The number of seeds (developed or undeveloped)
were counted from 10 random sample pods per treatment.

5. Length of pods (cm). The same sample pods used in data # 4 above were
measured from the pedicel end to the blossom end at maximum fresh pod-fill stage or at
two months after planting (2 MAP).

6. Width of pods (cm). The width of the ten random sample pods used in data #
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

12

5 was measured using a vernier caliper.

7. Weight of marketable dry beans per plot (kg). Seeds free from damages and
considered marketable were weighed.

8. Weight of non-marketable dry bean yield per plot (kg). Damaged and
deformed seeds and are considered non-marketable were weighed.

9. Total yield (kg). All harvested dry seeds per plot were weighed and recorded.
D. Occurrence of Pests and Diseases. Insect pests and diseases that attacked the plants
during the study were identified and the extent of infestation (insect pests) and infection
(diseases) were rated using the following scale:

1. Rating scale for insect (Bean fly)

Scale
Description



Remarks

1

no infestation per plot


highly resistant

2

20-30% infestation per
plot
moderately
resistant

3

31-40% infestation per plot

resistant

4

41-60% infestation per plot

susceptible

5

greater than 60% infestation per plot
highly resistant

2. Rating scale for disease (Bean rust)

Scale
Description



Remarks

1

no infection per plot


highly resistant

2

20-30% infection per plot
moderately
resistant

3

31-40% infection per plot


resistant

4

41-60% infection per plot


susceptible

5

greater than 60% infection per plot
highly resistant

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

13

E. Return on Cash Expense. The production cost, gross sales, net return, and return on
cash expense (ROCE) were determined. The ROCE was computed using the formula:
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

14

Gross Sales - Total Expenses

CRA = ----------------------------------------- X 100
Total Expenses

Data Analyses

All the quantitative data measured in the study were statistically analyzed using
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with two factor factorial. The differences
among the treatment means were tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
(DMRT).





Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

15

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Meteorological Data

The temperature, relative humidity and rainfall amount were recorded throughout
the conduct of the study are shown in Table 1.

The maximum temperature (24.140C) was highest during the first week of
November. The minimum temperature was lowest in the first week of January. This
temperature range was favorable to the growth of bush snapbean.

Total sunshine ranged from 289.94 to 508 minutes. Relative humidity ranged
from 74.71 to 87% which did not favor the increase of bean fly population and bean rust
inoculum to cause considerable damage to the plants. Unexpected rainfall was noted
throughout the duration of the study especially during the vegetative and fruit
development stages where the plants needed much water thereby providing irrigation.
When rainfall was not enough to provide water requirement of the bush snapbeans, this
was augmented by artificial irrigation.

The climate during the cropping period was found to be suitable for bush
snapbean production. However, the unexpected rain during the latter part of the
experiment was detrimental to dry bean production as this enhanced seed discoloration
thereby making seeds non-marketable.

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

16

Table 1. Average weekly climatic data during the study period

===============================================================


RAINFALL TEMPERATURE SUNSHINE
RELATIVE
PERIOD

MINIMUM MAXIMUM

HUMIDITY


(mm) (0C) (0C) (min) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November

First week 0
23.87
16.57
355.71
78.14
Second week 5.17
24.14
15.97
290.57
85.59
Third week 1.34
23.20
14.56
292.28
76.00
Fourth week 0
23.37
15.24
327.43
78.86

December

First week 3.63
23.66
15.33
282.00
74.71
Second week 0.68
21.81
15.37
189.94
83.28
Third week 0.37
22.42
14.87
269.14
80.00
Fourth week 2.37
22.41
12.81
262.28
78.14
Fifth week 3.66
22.74
13.80
294.00
82.28

January









First week 1.34
21.83
11.44
344.57
84.14
Second week 0
22.98
12.14
580.00
81.25
Third week 2.44
22.14
13.53
340.57
82.00
Fourth week 0.96
22.31
14.66
239.14
87.00
===============================================================
Source: BSU PAGASA Agro Station, Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet


Soil Analyses
Soil
pH. After harvest, there was an increase on the soil pH applied with coconut
coir dust, dolomite and garden compost. The increase in pH using dolomite is expected
since this soil amendment is generally used as liming material to check soil acidity. The
similar increase in soil pH applied with coconut coir dust is due to its inherent high pH.

Organic matter content (%). There was an increase on the OM content of the soil
applied with coconut coir dust and CRH while there was no change on the initial value of
OM content of the soil applied with dolomite and garden compost. The increase on OM
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

17

content could be attributed to the decomposition of CCD and CRH since both are plant
residues while dolomite does not undergo decomposition. This property of coconut coir
dust and carbonized rice hull make them more valuable in soil revitalization.
Nitrogen
content
(%). Among the treatments tested, the soil applied with coconut
coir dust and carbonized rice hull increased soil N content by 0.025% while the soil
added with dolomite and garden compost did not show similar increase in N content. The
slight increase of N content due to CCD and CRH further proves their usefulness in the
maintenance of soil integrity and in the overall soil management practice.

Phosphorous content ppm). In terms of phosphorous content, soils applied with
dolomite and coconut coir dust had reduced phosphorous content while there was an
increase on soil applied with CRH and garden compost. The result showed that
application of CRH and garden compost increased the level of phosphorous in the soil.

Potassium content (ppm). There was a reduction of potassium content on soil
applied with coconut coir dust, CRH and garden compost as shown by soil analysis.
Application of dolomite in the soil before planting increased the potassium content of the
soil.

Table 2. Initial and final soil analyses of the experimental area*

===============================================================




pH OM(%)
N(%) P(ppm) K(ppm)
________________________________________________________________________

Before planting

6.17 2.50
0.125
100.00 528.00
After planting
Coconut coir dust
6.41 3.00
0.150
90.00 432.00
Carbonized rice hull
6.10 3.00
0.150
124.00 476.00
Dolomite

6.96 2.50
0.120
75.00 620.00
Garden compost
6.29 2.50
0.120
120.00 500.00
===============================================================
* Done by the Bureau of Soils, Pacdal, Baguio City
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

18


Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

19

Days to Emergence

Effect of variety. Table 3 shows the number of days from planting to emergence
of the four varieties of bush snapbean. It was observed that the Red Kidney bean and
“Lipstikan” emerged a day later than the other two varieties which emerged four days
after planting (DAP). The difference between traditional and introduced varieties could
be attributed to their varietal characteristics where the traditional varieties have more
water resilient skin thus they absorbed moisture necessary for germination slower than
the introduced varieties.

Effect of soil amendment. It was observed that dolomite and garden compost
delayed the emergence of seeds on bush snapbean by one day as compared to the other
soil amendments. Statistically, however, no significant difference was revealed.
Interaction
effect . Landmark and Contender with the different soil amendment
emerged at the same day while Red kidney bean and “Lipstikan’ also emerged at the
same time but a day later than the two former varieties. Statistically, there was no
interaction of bush snapbean varieties and the different soil amendments on the number
of days to emergence. Further, the different soil amendments do not in any way had an
effect on snapbean emergence.

Days to Flowering
Effect of variety. Among the four varieties of bush snapbeans tested, Landmark
and Contender were the earliest to flower at 39 DAP. Red Kidney bean and “Lipstikan”
were observed to have flowered one day later. The trend follows that of days to
emergence where snapbean varieties that emerged earlier were also noted to have
flowered earlier (Table 3).
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

20


Effect of soil amendment. Coconut coir dust and carbonized rice hull (CRH)
enhanced the flowering of snapbean by one day. The result appeared not conclusive
enough to say that the soil amendments had influenced the number of days to flowering.
Interaction
effect. From the data gathered, it could be deduced that the number of
days to flowering is not influenced by the different soil amendments. The slight
differences on the number of days to flowering could be attributed to varietal trait.

Plant Height at Maturity

Effect of variety. The average plant height as affected by bush snapbean is also
shown in Table 3. Results showed that Contender was the tallest with a mean of 35.77
followed by Red kidney bean, Landmark and “Lipstikan”. Statistical analysis revealed
no significant differences on the plant height of the four snapbean varieties.

Effect of soil amendment. Table 3 also shows the height of bush snapbean as
affected by the different soil amendments. Statistical analysis revealed no significant
differences on the height of the plants applied with the different soil amendments.
Although, plants applied with coconut coir dust appear to be the tallest among the
treatments.
Interaction
effect. Differences on plant height of the different varieties in
response to the soil amendments were found to be statistically significant. Contender
which was planted on soil with coconut coir dust was the tallest. The shortest plants were
noted in Landmark with dolomite as soil amendment.

Other intervening factors necessary for plant growth such as availability of
nutrients, light, soil moisture, etc. might have caused the differences in plant height at
maturity.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

21


Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

22

Table 3. Days from planting to emergence, days to flowering and plant height at 90 DAP

as affected by variety and soil amendments

===============================================================
TREATMENT
DAYS TO

PLANT HEIGHT



EMERGENCE
FLOWERING
(cm)
_______________________________________________________________________

Factor A
Landmark

4.0

39.0

33.27
Contender

4.0

39.0

35.77
Red Kidney Bean
5.0

41.0

35.41
“Lipstikan”

5.0

41.0

32.40

Factor B
Coconut coir dust
4.0

39.0

36.26
Carbonized rice hull
4.0

39.0

33.92
Dolomite

5.0

41.0

32.93
Garden compost

5.0

41.0

33.76

Factor A x Factor B




*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CV
(%)
11.51
===============================================================


The shortest plants in each variety were noted on garden compost as soil
amendment except on “Lipstikan” where garden compost was favorable in influencing its
height. The addition of coconut coir dust in the soil favored taller plants in Landmark
and Contender, both introduced varieties (Fig. 1).

Length of Pods

Effect of variety. The longest pods were gathered from Contender which was
found to be highly significant over the pod length of the other three varieties. The results
indicate that bush snapbean varieties have different response in terms of pod length.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

23


Effect of soil amendment. The pod length as affected by the different soil
amendments gave comparable result though numerically, longer pods were obtained
using
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

24

garden compost and carbonized rice hull. This indicates that pod development was better
sustained by garden compost and carbonized rice hull.
Interaction
effect. Based on the interaction data, it can be observed that the
different bush snapbean varieties gave varied responses to the different soil amendments.
“Lipstikan”, a traditional variety in Apayao responded better to carbonized rice hull but
gave the shortest pods when in combination with coconut coir dust. The possibility could
be that coconut coir dust exudates along the process of decomposition is not favorable to
“Lipstikan” thus, it suppressed pod growth in terms of length.

On the other hand, Red kidney bean with almost uniform pod length and
Contender responded fairly well on the four soil amendments used while Landmark
responded well on garden compost but poorly on dolomite.

Width of Pods

Effect of variety. The two traditional varieties, “Lipstikan” and Red kidney bean
gave comparable pod width but were found to be statistically wider than Landmark and
Contender (Table 4). In the fresh market, the preferred bean pods are long and narrow
(almost pencil-size) which both characters are possessed by Landmark and Contender.

Effect of soil amendment. The width of pods as affected by the different soil
amendment is shown in Table 4. Using Garden Compost as soil amendment gave the
widest pods followed by plants grown with Dolomite as soil amendment. However, no
significant differences were revealed between the four soil amendments to cause
differences on the width of pods.
Interaction
effect. There were no significant interaction effect between bush
snapbean varieties and the four different soil amendments. However, it was observed
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

25

that the different soil amendments favored wider pods on the two traditional varieties but
shorter. And, favored longer pods but narrower on the two introduced varieties.

Number of Seeds per Pod

Effect of variety. Landmark and Contender gave statistically higher number of
seeds per pod over Red Kidney bean and “Lipstikan”. Since Landmark and Contender
were observed to have longer pods and smaller seeds, thus, more seeds developed from
each pod.

Effect of soil amendment. As shown in Table 4, there exist significant differences
on the number of seeds per pod as affected by the different soil amendments. The least
number of seeds was observed on using CRH as soil amendment. Landmark and
Contender were found to be comparable but had higher number of seeds per pod
compared with Red Kidney bean and “Lipstikan”. Using carbonized rice hull as soil
additive gave statistically lesser seeds per pod while the three other soil additives gave
comparably higher results. With this, it is suffice to say that the use of soil additives
influenced the number of seeds per pod.

Interaction effect. It was observed that there were significant interaction effect of
variety and soil amendment on the number of seeds per pod. Landmark grown in soil
with coconut coir dust and dolomite as soil amendment gave numerically equal number
of seeds per pod while those grown with carbonized rice hull and garden soil had lesser
seeds. On the other hand, Contender grown in coconut coir dust, dolomite and garden
compost as soil amendment developed equal number of seeds per pod which was higher
than Contender grown with carbonized rice hull. The result is true with Red Kidney bean
which gave the same response to the different soil amendments though numerically lower
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

26

in value. “Lipstikan” gave similar response to coconut coir dust, carbonized rice hull and
garden
Table 4. Length of pods, width of pods, and number of seeds per pod as affected by
variety and soil amendments
===============================================================
TREATMENT LENGTH OF PODS WIDTH OF PODS NUMBER OF SEEDS



(cm)
(cm)

PER POD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A
Landmark

14.53b
1.37b
5.78a
Contender

16.53a
1.41b
5.92a
Red Kidney bean
14.50b
1.65a
3.92b
“Lipstikan”

14.32b
1.63a
4.04b
Factor B
Coconut coir dust
14.77
1.50


5.04a
Carbonized rice hull
15.00
1.50


4.66b
Dolomite

14.94
1.52


5.07a
Garden compost

15.17
1.55


4.90a

Factor A x Factor B ns

ns

*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CV (%)


7.53
4.90


5.03

===============================================================
Means with a common letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P 0.05)

compost and gave lesser number of pods as a result of its interaction with dolomite
(Fig.2).

Marketable Seeds/Plot

Effect of variety. Red kidney bean though found to have shorter pods that
contained lesser number of seeds than Contender, produced heavier marketable seeds
(Table 5). This could be attributed to seed size. Though Contender and Landmark
produced more seeds, these are smaller compared to the seeds of Red kidney bean and
“Lipstikan”.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

27


Effect of soil amendment. The four soil amendments applied to the soil did not
show any significant effect on the marketable seed yield. The effect of dolomite on the
marketable seed yield of bush snapbean was the poorest while the use of coconut coir
dust had the highest seed yield. However, the slight differences in weight was found to
be comparable among the four soil amendments.
Interaction
effect. The effect of garden compost on Landmark gave the heaviest
seed yield while Landmark on carbonized rice hull had the least seed yield which is the
opposite on the interaction of Contender on carbonized rice hull, the least yield was
obtained on Contender planted with coconut coir dust. On the other hand, the response of
Red kidney bean on dolomite and garden compost was the similar and found to be lower
than the seeds produced by Red kidney bean with carbonized rice hull. The production of
better seed yield in “Lipstikan” is favored by the use of coconut coir dust and the best for
Red kidney bean is with the use of carbonized rice hull as soil amendment.

There were no significant interaction effect between variety and soil amendment
observed on the marketable seed yield.

Non-Marketable Bean Seeds

The non-marketable seed yield considered in sorting the seeds were those that
were too small or underdeveloped and those that showed damages and were deemed not
fit for human consumption and as seed stock.
Effect of variety. Statistical analysis showed that Landmark and Contender
showed significantly higher non-marketable seed yield compared with Red Kidney bean
and “Lipstikan”. Contender produced the heaviest non-marketable seed yield followed by
Landmark, the least was obtained from “Lipstikan” (Table 5). Rainfall during the field
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

28

drying of bean pods was the major contributory factor. It appeared that dry pods of the
two introduced varieties had the tendency to absorb moisture easily thus causing damage
to the seeds.

Effect of soil amendment. The use of soil amendments did not have an effect on
the non-marketable seed yield of bush snapbean because at field drying stage of bean
pods it is the above-ground environment that intervened. The four soil amendments
applied did not significantly contribute to the non-marketable seed yield of bush
snapbean.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction between variety and soil
amendments on the weight of non-marketable seed yield was observed.

Total Seed Yield Per Plot
Effect of variety. Red Kidney bean produced numerically the heaviest dry seed
yield but was found statistically similar with the other varieties. This could be that Red
Kidney bean being a traditional variety is adapted to the growing conditions of the
locality.

Effect of soil amendment. The result indicates that using soil amendments did not
in any way influenced the production of dry seeds though it was observed that addition of
coconut coir dust gave the highest seed yield.
Interaction
effect. There was no significant interaction effect between the
varieties and soil amendments applied on the seed yield of bush snapbean.

Reaction to Bean Fly and Bean Rust

It was observed that all the varieties grown with the different soil amendments
were moderately resistant against bean fly and bean rust (Table 6). This reaction,
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

29

however, may have been affected by the relatively low temperature that prevailed during
the experiment. The prevalence of bean fly and bean rust is usually associated with
higher temperature and humid conditions.
Table 5. Weight of marketable, non-marketable, and total seed yield/plot as affected

by variety and soil amendments
===============================================================

TREATMENT
SEED YIELD TOTAL SEED YIELD
MARKETABLE
NON-MARKETABLE (kg/
8
m2)



(kg/8m2)
(kg/ 8 m2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factor A
Landmark

1.14b
0.173a

1.313
Contender

1.21b
0.235a

1.443
Red Kidney Bean
1.66a
0.085b

1.758
“Lipstikan”

1.39ab
0.081b

1.472

Factor B
Coconut coir dust
1.43
0.142

1.594
Carbonized rice hull
1.36
0.134

1.496
Dolomite

1.26
0.131

1.396
Garden compost

1.33
0.167

1.501

Factor A x Factor B ns

ns


ns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CV (%)


28.35

73.28

29.61
===============================================================
Means with a common letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P 0.05)


Table 6. Reaction of four snapbean varieties to bean fly and bean rust as affected by
variety and soil amendments

===============================================================

VARIETY
BEAN
FLY

BEAN
RUST
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landmark



2.0


2.0
Contender



2.0


2.0
Red Kidney Bean


2.0


2.0
“Lipstikan”


2.0


2.0

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

30

===============================================================



Cost and Return Analysis (CRA)
Varietal
effect. All the four snapbean varieties evaluated for seed production
were found to be profitable under La Trinidad, Benguet condition as evidenced by the
computed cost and return analysis (Table 7). It was observed that Red Kidney bean gave
the highest return on cash expense (251.85%). “Lipstikan” and Contender followed with
188.00% and 150.05%. The least cost and return analysis was obtained on Landmark
with 136.05% but the figure is still considered high.

Effect of soil amendment. The cost and return analysis of bush snapbean plants
as affected by the different soil amendments is shown in Table 7. It was observed that
the plants applied with garden compost registered the highest cost and return analysis
(194.66%) while plants applied with CCD and CRH had an CRA of 186.65% and
183.33%, respectively. The plants applied with dolomite had the lowest CRA with
162.62%. Bush snapbean for seed production with any of the four soil amendments
applied had been proven to be profitable.
Interaction
effect. The highest CRA was obtained from Red Kidney bean planted
on soil added with CRH while the lowest CRA was obtained from Landmark using CRH
as soil amendment (Table 7).

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

31

Table 7. Cost and return analysis of producing four bush snapbean varieties under La

Trinidad, Benguet

===============================================================
VARIETY
SEED YIELD GROSS TOTAL NET CRA


(kg) SALES EXPENSES INCOME (%)





(PhP) (PhP)
(PhP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landmark

13.68 4104.00 2197.30
2365.50 107.65
Contender

14.49 4347.00 2197.30
2608.50 118.71
Red kidney bean
20.39 5097.50 2197.30
2900.20 131.99
“Lipstikan”
16.69 4172.50 2197.30
1975.20 89.89
===============================================================
Total expenses include land preparation, seeds, cost of soil amendment, care and
management includes weeding, watering and spraying
- Selling Price: Landmark & Contender = PhP300.00/kg


Red Kidney bean & “Lipstikan” = PhP250.00/kg



Table 8. Cost and reteurn analysis of producing four bush snapbean varieties with soil
amendment under La Trinidad, Benguet

===============================================================
SOIL AMEND SEED YIELD GROSS TOTAL NET CRA
MENTS
(kg) SALES EXPENSES INCOME (%)





(PhP) (PhP)
(PhP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coconut coir dust
17.18 4625.50 1798.00
2827.50 157.26
Carbonized rice hull 16.32 4435.50 1728.00
2707.50 156.68
Dolomite
15.74 4305.00 1798.00
2507.00 139.43
Garden Compost
16.01 4356.00 1630.00
2726.00 167.24
===============================================================
Total expenses include land preparation, seeds, cost of soil amendment, care and
management includes weeding, watering and spraying
- Selling Price: Landmark & Contender = PhP300.00/kg


Red Kidney bean & “Lipstikan” = PhP250.00/kg




Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

32

Table 9. Cost and return analysis of producing four bush snapbean varieties applied with
different soil amendments under La Trinidad, Benguet

===============================================================
VARIETY
SEED YIELD GROSS TOTAL NET CRA


(kg)
SALES EXPENSES INCOME (%)





(PhP) (PhP) (PhP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landmark
Coconut coir dust 3.56
1068.00
564.40
503.60 89.23
Carbonized rice hull 2.92
876.00
564.60
329.40 60.26
Dolomite
3.40
1020.00
564.40
455.60 80.78
Garden compost
3.80
1140.00
521.90
618.10 118.43










Contender








Coconut coir dust 3.05
915.00
564.40
760.60 62.83
Carbonized rice hull 3.19
1257.00
564.60
710.40 128.97
Dolomite
4.00
1200.00
564.40
635.60 112.66
Garden compost
3.25
975.00
521.90
453.10 86.82










Red
Kidney
Bean

Coconut coir dust 5.30
1325.00
564.40
760.40 134.76
Carbonized rice hull 5.60
1400.00
564.60
853.40 156.13
Dolomite
4.74
1185.00
564.40
620.60 109.97
Garden compost
4.75
1187.50
521.90
665.60 127.53









“Lipstikan”






Coconut coir dust
5.27 1317.50
564.40
753.10
133.43
Carbonized rice hull
3.61 902.50
564.60
355.90
65.11
Dolomite

3.60 900.00
564.40
335.90
59.46
Garden compost

4.21 1053.50
521.90
530.60
101.67
===============================================================
Total expenses include land preparation, seeds, cost of soil amendment, care and
management includes weeding, watering and spraying
Selling Price: Landmark & Contender = PhP300.00/kg


Red Kidney bean & “Lipstikan” = PhP250.00/kg

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

33

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The study was conducted at the BSU Experimental Station to identify bush
snapbean variety that is most responsive to certain kind of soil amendment; determine
which soil amendment would give the highest yield of bush snapbean; and determine the
interaction of soil amendments and different varieties of bush snapbeans.

The longest pods were gathered from Contender. The results indicate that bush
snapbean varieties have different response in terms of pod length. Also, longer pods
were obtained using garden compost and carbonized rice hull. “Lipstikan”, a traditional
variety in Apayao responded better to carbonized rice hull treatment but gave the shortest
pods on coconut coir dust. Furthermore, the two traditional varieties, “Lipstikan” and Red
kidney bean had comparable pod width. Using garden compost as soil amendment gave
the widest pods. The different soil amendments favored wider but shorter pods on the two
traditional varieties. Landmark and Contender exhibited higher number of seeds per pod
comparable to Red Kidney Bean and “Lipstikan”. Using carbonized rice hull as soil
additive gave lesser seeds per pod. Landmark grown in soil with coconut coir dust and
dolomite as soil amendment gave numerically equal number of seeds per pod while those
grown with carbonized rice hull and garden soil had lesser seeds. On the other hand,
Contender grown in coconut coir dust, dolomite and garden compost as soil amendment
developed equal number of seeds per pod. Compared to Landmark and Contender,
“Lipstikan” and Red Kidney bean produced lower number of seeds when grown using
any of the soil amendments.
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

34


Contender and Landmark produced more but smaller seeds. The effect of
dolomite on the marketable seed yield of bush snapbean was the poorest while the use of
coconut coir dust had the highest seed yield. Garden compost on Landmark gave the
heaviest seed yield while Landmark on carbonized rice hull had the least seed yield. On
the other hand, the response of Red kidney bean to dolomite and garden compost was
similar and found to be lower than the seeds produced by Red Kidney bean with
carbonized rice hull. The production of better seed yield in “Lipstikan” is favored by the
use of coconut coir dust and the best for Red kidney bean is with the use of carbonized
rice hull as soil amendment. Landmark and Contender had higher non-marketable seed
yield compared with Red Kidney Bean and “Lipstikan”. The four soil amendments
applied appear to favor the production of marketable seeds of bush snapbean.

Red Kidney bean produced the heaviest seed yield while Contender had the
lowest. Also, Red Kidney on coconut coir dust and on carbonized rice hull produced high
CRA.

Conclusion

Red Kidney bean was the most responsive to carbonized rice hull as soil
amendment in terms of pod width, marketable seed yield per plot thus gave the highest
return on cash expenses. The use of coconut coir dust enhanced earlier seed emergence,
days to flowering, taller plants at 90 DAP, higher number of seed per pod and higher seed
yield.

Contender on coconut coir dust were significantly taller than the other treatments
at 90 DAP. The number of seeds observed on Landmark in combination with carbonized
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

35

rice hull were significantly higher. The cost and return analysis observed on Red Kidney
bean in combination with carbonized rice hull was high.

Recommendation

With the good performance of Red Kidney bean, it is highly recommended for
seed production under La Trinidad, Benguet condition for higher return on cash expense.
Likewise, coconut coir dust as soil amendment is also recommended for taller plants,
higher marketable seed yield thus, will give high CRA. “Lipstikan” with coconut coir
dust as soil amendment could be an alterative choice.

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

36

LITERATURE CITED


ABADILLA, D.C. 1982. Organic Farming. AFA Publication Inc., Quezon City. Pp.18
97.

ANDREW, W.B. 1984. Response of Crop and Soil Fertilizers. MacMillan Book Co. P.
185.

ANONYMOUS. 2004. Processing Snapbean
Production.


http//ipcm.wise.edu/piap/snapbean/sbprod.htm.

CROKETT, J.V. 1987. Flowering Shrubs. HongKong. P. 41.

CUYAHON, R.H. Commercial Fertilizer:Their Sources and Use. Tata MCGraw-Hill
Pub. Co. Ltd., New Delhi. P. 62

CUYAHON, R.T. and M.M. MARQUEZ. 2001. Organic fertilization and liming of
strawberry
(Fragaria vesca). BSU Res. J. 25:37-30.

EVANS, L.E and G. WILES. 2003. Coir-based Viburnum and Lilac. http//www.Grow
coir. Com/Growth.html.

ERASQUIN, M.U. 1981. The use of decomposed pine tree sawdust and inorganic NPK
fertilizer on the production of snapbeans. BS Thesis . BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 20.

FRANCOIS, C.E. 2003. Different growing media for Petunia and Marigold.
http/www.Coirtrade.Co./Growth html.

JONES, N.S. 1982. Fertilizers and Fertility. Reston, Virginia Publishing Co. Pp. 303-

304.

HUANG, L.S. and M.W. LIN 2001. Growing media for arum lilies. Htt://ww.Agnet.

KUDAN, S.L. 1991. How to grow snapbean. Dept. of Crop Sci. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 1-5.

MABAZZA, F.B. 1997. Production of six promising pea lines as affected by organic
fertilizer. BS Thesis . BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 6.

MARCELINO, C.B. 1995. Effect of different organic matter on the growth and yield of
NCT-8 Japonica rice variety. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P.
5.

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

37

MARTIN, J.H. and W.H. LEONARD. 1979. 2nd . Principles of Crop Production.
McMillan
Co., New York. P. 74.

MARQUEZ, M. 1998. Soil Science 12 Lab. Manual. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.

PARNES. R. 1986. Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer. Wood and Agricultural Institute.
P. 199.

PANDOSEN, M.P. 1980. The effect of different rate of NPK and organic fertilizer on
the growth and yield of Irish Potato. MS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 13-14.

PATARAS, K.L. 1984. Response of snapbean to organic fertilizers. BS Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 143.

PONTAILLER, S. 1964. Fertilizers and Manures. Univ. of France, Paris. Pp. 27-28.

PURSEGLOVE, J.W. 1978. Tropical Crop Dicotyledon. Univ. of West Indies. St.
Agustin. P. 297.

SANGATANAN, P.D. and R.L. SANGATAN. 1990. Soil Management. Rex Printing
Co., Manila. Pp. 95-96.

SAVITHRI, P.V. 1993. Characteristics of coconut coir peat and utilization by
composted coir peat application. Fert. News 38:39-40.

SCHWERDT, R.G. 2003. Dolomite. hHp//www.Dolomite.Co. Nc/info.

SWIADER, J.M. and G.W. WARE. 2002. Producing Vegetable Crops. The InterState
Printers and Publishers, Inc., USA. Pp. 252-253.

TADEO, B.D. 2003. Carbonized rise hull exported to Japan. The Philippine Star,


Manila, Phil. 18(26)B3.

VANDER WERTT, M.M. 1997. East-West Seed Co., Inc., Makati City, Phil. 1:1 Pp 1-
4.

VAVRINA, C.S. 1992. Florida Vegetable transplants survey, 1989-1990. Horticulture
Technology. 2:480-483.

VIEN, L.T. 2003. Rice ash on production. http://www.agroecology.



Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

38

APPENDICES


APPENDIX TABLE 1. Weekly climatic data during the study period

===============================================================


RAINFALL TEMPERATURE SUNSHINE
RELATIVE
PERIOD

MINIMUM MAXIMUM

HUMIDITY


(mm) (0C) (0C) (min) (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 10, 2005 5.20 15.2
24.8 48
82
Nov. 17, 2005 0.00 13.6
23.2
420
83
Nov. 2, 2005 0.00 13.3
22.4
456 84
Dec. 1, 2005 0.00
14.5
23.8
354 75
Dec. 8, 2005 0.00
15.8
23.4
114 77
Dec. 15, 2005 0.00
14.8
21.9
246 89
Dec. 22, 2005 0.00
14.2
23.5
342 77
Dec. 29, 2005 0.00
15.2
23.0 18 83
Jan. 5, 2006 4.80
11.0
22.0
408 82
Jan. 12, 2006 0.00
7.5
21.0
588 76
Jan. 19, 2006 0.00
11.6
23.0
528 59
Jan. 26, 2006 1.90
14.5
21.5
174 95
Feb. 2, 2006 0.00
14.5
23.5
372 69
===============================================================
BSU PAGASA Agro Station, BSU, Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet




APPENDIX TABLE 2. Soil pH, organic matter (OM) and NPK content of the soil
before and after planting*

===============================================================




pH OM(%)
N(%) P(ppm) K(ppm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before planting

6.17 2.50
0.12
100.00 528.00
After planting
Coconut coir dust
6.41 3.00
0.15
90.00 432.00
Carbonized rice hull
6.10 3.00
0.15
124.00 476.00
Dolomite

6.96 2.50
0.12
75.00 620.00
Garden compost
6.29 2.50
0.12
120.00 500.00
===============================================================
*Done by the Bureau of Soils, Pacdal, Baguio City


Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

39

APPENDIX TABLE 3. Days to emergence

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT --------------------------------------------------- TOTAL
MEAN


I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
S2

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
S3

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
S4

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
V2S1

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
S2

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
S3

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
S4

4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
V3S1
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
S2

5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
S3

5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
S4

5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
V4S1
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
S2
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
S3

5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
S4

5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================



Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

40

APPENDIX TABLE 4. Days to flowering

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------- TOTAL MEAN


I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
S2
39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
S3

39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
S4

39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
V2S1

39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
S2
39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
S3

39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
S4
39.0
39.0
39.0
117.0
39.0
V3S1
41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
S2
41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
S3
41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
S4
41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
V4S1
41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
S2

41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
S3
41.0
41.0
41.0
123.0
41.0
S4
41.0
41.0
41.0
1230
41.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

41

APPENDIX TABLE 5. Plant height at 90 DAP (cm)

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -------------------------------------------------
TOTAL MEAN


I II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
37.20
34.34
30.60
101.96
33.99
S2
41.42
28.00
29.58


99.00
33.00
S3
28.30
29.16
29.88


87.34
29.11
S4

39.72
35.80
35.50
111.02
27.00
V2S1

39.86
40.74
44.72
125.32
41.77
S2
35.88
39.56
34.18
109.62
36.54
S3

39.56
30.46
34.86
104.88
35.57
S4

35.34
29.86
24.30


89.50
29.83
V3S1

36.90
38.60
31.20
106.70
35.57
S2

34.02
38.74
32.32
105.08
35.03
S3
39.70
33.70
39.64
113.04
37.68
S4

29.16
37.36
33.54
100.06
33.35
V4S1
31.66
32.78
36.70
101.14
33.71
S2

39.64
27.80
25.90
103.34
34.45
S3
31.46
26.56
31.76


89.78
29.92
S4
33.46
37.28
33.84
104.58
34.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN







COMPOST
MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
1021.60 990.00 873.40 1110.20 3995.20 332.93
CONTENDER
1253.20 1096.20 1048.80 895.00 4293.20 357.77
RED KIDNEY BEAN 1067.00 1050.80 1130.40 1000.60 4248.80 354.07
“LIPSTIKAN”
1011.40 933.40 897.80 1045.80 3888.40 324.03
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL

4353.20 4070.40 3950.40 4051.60 16425.20

MEAN







342.20


Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

42

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2 66.250 33.125
Factor A
3 96.258 32.086 2.0672
2.92
4.51
Factor B
3 73.801 24.600 1.5849
2.92
4.51
AB

9 314.589 34.954 2.2520
2.21
3.06
Error
30 465.652 15.522
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47 1016.550
===============================================================


Coefficient
of
variation
=
11.51%

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

43

APPENDIX TABLE 6. Number of seeds per pod

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL MEAN


I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
6.10
5.90
6.00
18.00
6.00
S2
6.20
5.40
5.30
16.90
5.33
S3
5.70
6.20
6.10
18.00
6.00
S4
5.40
6.00
5.10
16.50
5.50
V2S1
6.00
6.10
6.30
18.40
6.00
S2
5.70
5.20
5.00
15.90
5.00
S3
6.50
6.30
6.00
18.80
6.00
S4
6.10
6.00
5.90
18.00
6.00
V3S1
4.10
4.00
4.00
12.10
4.00
S2
3.80
3.10
3.90
10.80
3.60
S3
4.10
4.00
4.00
12.10
4.00
S4
4.10
3.90
4.10
12.10
4.00
V4S1
4.00
4.00
4.00
12.00
4.00
S2
4.10
4.20
4.00
12.30
4.00
S3
3.90
4.00
4.00
11.90
3.90
S4
4.20
3.90
4.10
12.20
4.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN







COMPOST MEAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
18.00
16.90 18.00
16.50 69.40
5.78
CONTENDER
18.40 15.90 18.80 18.00 71.40 5.92
RED KIDNEY BEAN 12.10 10.80 12.10 12.10 47.10 3.92
“LIPSTIKAN”
12.00 12.34 11.90 12.20 48.44 4.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
60.50 55.94 60.80 58.80 236.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEAN


4.92
===============================================================

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

44

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2
0.167 0.084
Factor A
3 42.308 14.103 230.0586** 2.92
4.51
Factor B
3
1.241 0.414 6.7488** 2.92
4.51
AB

9
1.480 0.164 2.6820* 2.21
3.06
Error 30
1.839 0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47
47.035
===============================================================


Coefficient
of
variation
=
5.03%

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

45

APPENDIX TABLE 7. Length of pods (cm)

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------- TOTAL MEAN


I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
12.74
15.85
14.06
42.65
14.22
S2
14.87
14.42
13.34
42.63
14.21
S3
14.62
14.37
12.92
41.91
13.97
S4
16.23
15.95
14.96
47.14
15.71
V2S1
15.52
17.54
18.12
51.18
17.06
S2
16.94
13.84
17.42
48.20
16.07
S3
15.83
17.24
17.83
50.90
16.97
S4
16.67
16.58
14.85
48.10
16.03
V3S1
14.48
15.08
13.91
43.47
14.49
S2
14.03
14.44
14.93
43.40
14.47
S3
13.81
16.45
14.08
44.34
14.78
S4
13.06
15.33
14.42
42.81
14.27
V4S1
14.53
12.89
12.52
39.94
13.31
S2
16.43
14.94
14.41
45.78
15.26
S3
14.61
14.03
13.55
42.19
14.06
S4
15.22
13.47
15.24
43.93
14.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN






COMPOST MEAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
42.65 42.63 41.91 47.14 174.33 14.53
CONTENDER
51.18 48.20 50.90 48.10 198.38 16.53
RED KIDNEY BEAN 43.47 43.40 44.34 42.81 174.02 14.50
“LIPSTIKAN”
39.94 45.78 42.19 43.93 171.84 14.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
177.24 180.01 179.34 181.98 718.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAN








14.97
===============================================================
Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

46

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2 1.074 0.537
Factor A
3 39.317 13.106 10.3093** 2.92
4.51
Factor B
3 0.955 0.318 0.2505ns
2.92
4.51
AB

9 14.187 1.576 1.2399ns 2.21
3.06
Error
30 38.138 1.271
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47 93.671
===============================================================







Coefficient of variation = 7.53%

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

47

APPENDIX TABLE 8. Width of pods (cm)

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ---------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN


I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
1.30
1.32
1.39
4.01
1.34

S2
1.22
1.36
1.30
3.88
1.29
S3
1.28
1.35
1.41
4.04
1.35
S4
1.70
1.37
1.43
4.50
1.50
V2S1
1.40
1.31
1.46
4.17
1.39
S2
1.50
1.40
1.37
4.27
1.42
S3
1.41
1.43
1.43
4.27
1.42
S4
1.46
1.35
1.41
4.22
1.41
V3S1
1.54
1.70
1.70
4.94
1.65
S2
1.70
1.63
1.64
4.97
1.65
S3
1.64
1.66
1.74
5.04
1.68
S4
1.56
1.67
1.66
4.89
1.63
V4S1
1.63
1.62
1.67
4.92
1.64
S2
1.60
1.59
1.65
4.84
1.61
S3
1.64
1.60
1.64
4.88
1.63
S4
1.51
1.72
1.71
4.94
1.65
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN







COMPOST MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
10.16 8.76 12.44 10.67 42.03 3.50
CONTENDER
11.68 12.37 12.77 12.22 49.04 4.09
RED KIDNEY BEAN 19.05 19.66 20.38 18.91 78.00 6.50
“LIPSTIKAN”
19.22 18.36 18.76 19.49 75.83 6.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
60.11 59.15 64.35 61.29 244.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAN


5.10
===============================================================





Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

48

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2
0.011 0.006
Factor A
3
0.778 0.259 46.9863** 2.92
4.51
Factor B
3
0.017 0.006 1.0389ns 2.92
4.51
AB

9
0.064 0.007 1.2934ns 2.21
3.06
Error
30
0.166 0.006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47
1.037
===============================================================







Coefficient of variation = 4.90%

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

49

APPENDIX TABLE 9. Weight of marketable dry seed yield (kg)

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL MEAN


I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
1.56
1.25
0.75
3.56
1.19
S2
0.92
1.25
0.75
2.92
0.97
S3
1.25
1.40
0.75
3.40
1.13
S4
1.70
1.10
1.00
3.80
1.27
V2S1
1.25
1.00
0.80
3.05
1.02
S2
1.27
1.44
1.50
4.19
1.40
S3
1.85
0.90
1.25
4.00
1.33
S4
1.90
0.95
0.40
3.25
1.08
V3S1
2.80
1.25
1.25
5.30
1.77
S2
2.70
1.50
1.40
5.60
1.87
S3
1.24
1.60
1.24
4.74
1.58
S4
1.25
1.90
1.60
4.75
1.58
V4S1
2.27
1.50
1.50
5.27
1.76
S2
1.10
1.25
1.26
3.61
1.20
S3
1.35
1.25
1.00
3.60
1.20
S4
1.30
1.27
1.64
4.21
1.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN







COMPOST
MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
3.56 2.92 3.40 3.80 13.68 1.14
CONTENDER
3.05 4.21 4.00 3.25 14.51 1.21
RED KIDNEY BEAN 5.30 5.60 4.08 4.75 19.73 1.64
“LIPSTIKAN”
5.27 3.61 3.60 4.21 16.69 1.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
17.18 16.34 15.08 16.01 64.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEAN








1.35
===============================================================

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

50

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2
1.864 0.932
Factor A
3
1.825 0.608 4.1775*
2.92
4.51
Factor B
3
0.188 0.063 0.4314ns 2.92 4.51
AB

9
1.331 0.148 1.0159ns 2.21 3.06
Error
30
4.368 0.146
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47
9.577
===============================================================



Coefficient
of
variation
=
28.35%

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

51

APPENDIX TABLE 10. Weight of non-marketable seed yield (kg)

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN


I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
0.25
0.15
0.06
0.46
0.15
S2
0.35
0.10
0.11
0.56
0.19
S3
0.30
0.10
0.11
0.51
0.17
S4
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.55
0.18
V2S1
0.25
0.15
0.20
0.60
0.20
S2
0.20
0.19
0.11
0.50
0.17
S3
0.25
0.15
0.25
0.65
0.22
S4
0.80
0.20
0.06
1.06
0.35
V3S1
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.10
S2
0.25
0.07
0.05
0.37
0.12
S3
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.07
S4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.20
0.07
V4S1
0.19
0.05
0.10
0.34
0.11
S2
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.18
0.06
S3
0.05
0.06
0.10
0.21
0.07
S4
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.24
0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN







COMPOST MEAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
0.46
0.56 0.51 0.55 2.08 0.17
CONTENDER
0.60
0.50 0.65
1.06 2.81 0.23
RED KIDNEY BEAN 0.30
0.37 0.20
0.15 1.02 0.09
“LIPSTIKAN”
0.34
0.18 0.21
0.24 0.97 0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL

1.70 1.61 1.57 2.00 6.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEAN


0.14
===============================================================

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

52


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2 0.141 0.071
Factor A
3 0.198 0.066 5.9685**
2.92
4.51
Factor B
3 0.009 0.003 0.2856ns
2.92
4.51
AB

9 0.068 0.008 0.6839ns
2.21
3.06
Error
30 0.331 0.011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47 0.747
===============================================================


Coefficient
of
variation
=
73.28%


Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

53

APPENDIX TABLE 11. Total seed yield per plot (kg)

===============================================================



R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL MEAN


I
II III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V1S1
1.81
1.40
0.81
4.02
1.34
S2
1.27
1.35
0.86
3.46
1.15
S3
1.55
1.50
0.86
3.96
1.35
S4
1.95
1.25
1.15
4.35
1.45
V2S1
1.50
1.15
1.00
3.65
1.22
S2
1.47
1.63
1.61
4.74
1.58
S3
2.10
1.05
1.50
4.65
1.55
S4
2.70
1.15
0.46
4.31
1.43
V3S1
3.00
1.30
1.55
5.85
1.95
S2
2.95
1.57
1.45
5.97
1.99
S3
1.29
1.65
1.44
4.38
1.46
S4
1.30
1.95
1.65
4.90
1.63
V4S1
2.46
1.55
1.60
5.61
1.87
S2
1.13
1.35
1.31
3.79
1.26
S3
1.40
1.31
1.10
3.81
1.27
S4
1.35
1.37
1.73
4.45
1.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================


TWO-WAY TABLE

===============================================================



S O I L A M E N D M E N T TOTAL
VARIETY

CCD
CRH DOLOMITE GARDEN







COMPOST MEAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANDMARK
4.02 3.48 3.91 4.35 15.76 1.31
CONTENDER
3.65 4.71 4.65 4.31 17.32 1.44
RED KIDNEY BEAN 5.85 5.97 4.38 4.90 21.10 1.76
“LIPSTIKAN”
5.61 3.79 3.81 4.45 17.66 1.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
19.13 17.95 16.75 18.01 71.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEAN


1.50
===============================================================

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

54


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replication
2
2.804 1.402
Factor A
3
1.267 0.422 2.1502ns
2.92
4.51
Factor B
3
0.236 0.079 0.4012ns
2.92
4.51
AB

9
1.443 0.160 0.8165ns
2.21
3.06
Error
30
5.891 0.196
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 47 11.641
===============================================================







Coefficient of variation = 29.61%

Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected
by Different Soil Amendment / Nelie B. Daguyam. 2006

---

Document Outline

• Growth and Seed Yield of Bush Snapbean as Affected by Different Soil Amendment
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---