BIBLIOGRAPHY HECTOR, GAYOMBA C. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HECTOR, GAYOMBA C. APRIL 2006. Growth and Yield of Promising Potato
Genotypes Grown in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Ms. Esther Josephine D. Sagalla, BSc
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to evaluate the growth and yield of different potato genotypes in
an organic farm, to identify the best performing potato genotypes based on yield, to
determine the profitability of the different potato genotypes and to determine which of
the potato genotypes will be selected by the organic farmer.
The study revealed that 13.1.1 had the highest canopy cover, highest resistance to
late blight and highest total yield. Genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE for both
seed and table potato production.
Genotype 13.1.1 could be produced at Sinipsip, Buguias. Genotypes 38025.17,
676070, and 5.19.2.2 could also be produced in the area since these genotypes were
selected by the farmer.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Varietal Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Productivity of Organically Grown Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Effects of Organic Fertilizer on the Growth of Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Temperature and Relative Humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Soil Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Plant Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Plant Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Plant Vigor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Leaf Miner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Late Blight Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Marketable, Non-marketable and Total Yield of
Potato Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Potato Genotypes Selected by the Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Cost and Return Analysis of the Ten Potato
ii
Genotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Dry Matter Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
iii
INTRODUCTION
Potato is considered a world crop since it is produced in 130 nations. It is grown
from sea level to 13,000 feet, and its edible dry matter accounts for a higher volume of
the food consumed in the world than fish and meat combined (Rhaodes, 1982). Potato
can also give 11,000 kg or more of tubers per hectare even in underdeveloped agricultural
situations (Schultz, 1982).
In Benguet, Mountain Province, and some other areas where potatoes and other
crops are grown, most of the farmers are using chemicals in farming. They use synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides as a method to increase production and reduce yield loss.
However, these practices resulted in persistence or resistance of some pests and diseases,
soil degradation, low yield and water pollution.
To solve some of these problems and to increase profit, some farmers in Benguet
are now practicing organic farming. Instead of using chemicals, farmers employ crop
rotation, biological control, and others to reduce pest and disease incidence. They also
practice green manuring and use compost or organic fertilizer to sustain the fertility of
their soil. As a result, higher yields are produced (Lang, 2005) and higher profit is
gained.
Many farmers believe that potato has a potential for sustainable, non-chemical
farming since it fits well with many crop rotations, and does very well with natural
fertilizers. However, growing potato organically need a potential variety which is able to
produce high yield.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
2
The objectives of the study is to:
1. evaluate the growth and yield of different potato genotypes grown in an
organic farm;
2. identify the best performing potato genotypes based on yield;
3. determine the profitability of the different potato genotypes; and
4. determine which of the potato genotypes will be selected by the organic
farmer.
The study was conducted in an organic farm at Sinipsip, Buguias, Benguet from
November 2005 to February 2006.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Varietal Evaluation
To have a high yield, selecting a variety is necessary. Rasco and Amante (1994)
stated that variety evaluation is a process of documenting variety traits that can be used to
distinguish one variety from other varieties. Furthermore, Work and Carew (1995) cited
that varietal evaluation is done to observe characters such as yield, earliness, vigor,
maturity and quality.
Bautista and Mabesa (1972) suggested that a variety to be selected should be high
yielding, resistant to pest and disease, early maturing, and requires less input. In
addition, Cagampang and Lantican (1977) observed that the choice of variety is
important. The wise use of an improved and well-selected variety may result to
tremendous increase in yield.
Productivity of Organically Grown Crops
Yields in an organic farm during drought are comparable to or slightly better than
in a conventional farm. Organic farming yields would vary from moderately less than to
nearly comparable with conventional farming yields (Poincelot, 1986).
Organic farming produced either the same yield or lower but consume less
energy. Crop yields may be 20 % lower in the organic system, but input of fertilizer and
energy is reduced by 34 % to 53 % and pesticides input by 77 % (Madder and Fliebach,
2002).
Scientist and farmers agree that it is economically feasible to grow potatoes
successfully and at the same time improve the land’s productivity and fertility. Twenty
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
4
thousand to forty thousand pounds per acre is the usual range of organic yields while
conventional growers, often on muck soils, average around twenty seven thousand
pounds per acre (Caldwell, 1993). Furthermore, organic potatoes can be grown on a
large scale without commercial pesticides and standard fertilizers. However, yields are
lower than conventionally produced potatoes.
Huntsinger (1995) cited that in carefully monitored fields tests in 1990, organic
farming yield an average of twenty one thousand two hundred pounds of potatoes per
acre (over three tested varieties) while conventional farming methods yielded thirty two
thousand eight hundred pounds per acre.
Effects of Organic Fertilizer on the Growth of Crops
Donahue (1971) reported that organic matter supply some of the nutrients needed
by the growing plants as well as hormones and antibiotics. The nutrients are released in
harmony with the needs of plants. When environmental conditions are favorable, rapid
growth may happen.
Pandosen (1980) found out that organic matter contains nutrients, which can be
available through the work of microorganisms. The nutrients from the organic fertilizer
are supplemented by inorganic fertilizer mainly nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and
potassium (K). Once they are available, they are translocated by potassium thereby
influencing the growth of plants.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
5
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in a 150 m2 area which was thoroughly prepared. The
area was divided into three blocks containing ten plots measuring 1 x 5 meters each to
accommodate all the ten potato genotypes ( Figure 1).
The potato genotypes that were observed are the following:
GENOTYPE ORIGIN
380251.17 CIP,
Peru
384558.10 CIP,
Peru
676070 CIP,
Peru
Ganza Philippines
285411.22 CIP,
Peru
573275 CIP,
Peru
676089 CIP,
Peru
5.19.2.2 CIP,
Peru
575003 CIP,
Peru
13.1.1 CIP,
Peru
Preparation of Planting Materials
Clean mother plants were established and cut after 12 to 14 days. The stem
cuttings were then rooted in plastic trays containing sterilized black subsoil and compost.
After 8-12 days, the rooted cuttings were planted in the field.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
6
Layout and Planting
The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with
three replications. The planting distance was 25 x 30 cm between hills and rows.
The Farmer and the Farm
Mr. Johnny F. Osting is organic practitioner for almost six years. He updates
himself by attending seminars and trainings to gain additional knowledge and skills on
organic farming. He last attended the 1st Cordillera Organic Agriculture Congress in
January of 2006.
His farm which is almost flat and located on the top of a mountain is 2,350.31
meters above sea level. The crops he previously planted were carrots and raddish. The
soil type of his farm is sandy loam.
His farm was conventional for almost ten years and transitioned to an organic
farm four years ago.
Cultural Management Practices
Fertilizer application was done before planting. The basal fertilizer that was used
is a combination of compost chicken manure, sunflower and other weeds. Botanical
fungicide was used only during the occurrence of late blight.
All cultural management practices were employed uniformly to all plots as
needed throughout the duration of the study.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
7
Data Gathered
1. Temperature and relative humidity. The temperature and relative humidity of
the area were taken every after two weeks using a Compact Sling Psychrometer.
2. Soil analysis. The nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, soil pH, and organic
matter content of the soil were taken before planting and after harvesting.
3. Percentage survival. This was taken one week after transplanting and
computed using the formula:
Number of surviving plants
Total num
% Survival =
X 100
ber of plants planted
4. Plant height. Initial and final height was taken one week after hilling up and
one week before harvest respectively.
5. Plant vigor. This was recorded at 30 and 45 days after transplanting using the
rating scale of 1-5 as follows:
RATING DESCRIPTION
5 Highly
vigorous
4 Vigorous
3 Moderate
vigor
2 Poor
vigor
1
Very poor vigor
6. Canopy cover. It was taken 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP by using a wooden frame
120 x 60 cm in size and have equally sized 12 x 6 cm grids.
7. Leaf miner incidence. The appearance of insects was observed at 30, 45, 60,
and 75 DAP using the following scale (CIP, 2000):
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
8
RATING DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1
Less infested (1-20 %)
Resistant
2
Infested (20-40 %)
Moderately resistance
3
Moderate infested (41-60 %)
Intermediate
4 Severely
infested
(61-80
%) Moderately
susceptible
5 Most
serious
Susceptible
8. Late blight incidence. Observation was done at 45, 60 and 75 DAP using the
following scale (Henfling 1982):
CIP
DESCRIPTION OF CORRESPONDING
BLIGHT
SCALE*
SYMPTOMS
0
1
No blight can be observed.
0.1-1.0
1
Very few plants are affected with lesions.
1.1-2.0
2
Not more than two lesions per 10 m of row
(+/=30 plants).
3.1-10. 0
3
Up to 3 small lesions per plant or 1 lesion per 2
leaflet attacked.
10.1-24.0
4
Most plants are visibly attacked by late blight, 1
in 3 leaflets infected but few multiple infection
per leaflet.
25.0-29.0
5
Newly every leaflet have lesions, multiple
infection per leaflet is common, fields or plot
looks green but plants in plot are infected.
50.0-74.0
6
All plants have blight and half area is infected,
plots look green, freckled and brown blight is very
obvious.
75.0-90.0
7
As previous, but three quarters of each plant
blighted. Lower branches may be overwhelming
killed off, and the only green leaves if any are at
the top of the plants. Shade of the plant maybe
more spindly due to extensive foliage loss. Plots
look either brown or green.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
9
91.0-97.0
8
Some leaves and most stems are green. Plots look
brown with some green patches.
98.0-99.9
9
Few green leaves, almost all that remain are those
with blight lesions. Many stem lesion, plot looks
brown. All leaves and stem are dead.
100
9
All leaves and stem are dead.
*Description: 1-Highly resistant; 2-3 Resistant; 4-5 Moderately resistant;
6- Moderately susceptible; 8-9 Susceptible.
9. Weight of marketable tubers per 5 m2 (g). All tubers with marketable quality
were weighed at harvest.
10. Weight of non-marketable tubers per 5 m2 (g). Tubers which were less than
11 g, cracked, deformed, rotten, and damaged by pest were weighed at harvest.
11. Total yield per 5 m2 (g). This was taken by adding the weight of non-
marketable and marketable tubers.
12. Selection of the farmer. The potato genotypes which were selected by the
organic farmer and his reasons for selection were noted.
13. Return on cash expense (ROCE) per 5 m2. This was computed using the
formula:
Net Return
Expense
ROCE =
X 100
14. Dry matter content (%). Dry matter content of potato tubers was taken using
the following formula:
% Dry Matter = 100 % - % Moisture content
Where:
Fresh weight – Oven dry weight
% Mois
ture content =
Fresh weight
X 100
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
10
Data Analysis
All quantitative data was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
differences among the treatment means will be tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test (DMRT).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
11
Figure 1. Overview of the experiment 35 days after planting
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature and Relative Humidity
Table 1 shows the temperature and relative humidity during the growth and
development of the plants. The lowest temperature was found in the 2nd week of
February whereas, the highest was during the 4th week of December.
Relative humidity (%) was found to be highest during the 2nd week of February
and lowest in the 3rd week of January. The location was observed to be always cloudy
and windy which might be due to the high elevation of the farm.
These conditions were observed to adversely affect the performance of the crop
during its production.
Table 1. Temperature and relative humidity in the farm from planting until harvesting of
potatoes
TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
(oC)
(%)
November 2005
4th week
13.8
95
December 2005
2nd week
13.3
94
4th week
15.0
90
January 2006
2nd week
13.3
94
4th week
13.5
72
February 2006
2nd week
9.5
100
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
13
Soil Analysis
The soil analysis before planting and after harvesting is shown in Table 2. The
soil pH, organic matter, nitrogen and potassium increased after harvest. This may be
indirectly due to the low temperature of the soil. Low soil temperature causes crop roots
to be stunted, stubby and have few branches, thus reducing the ability of the roots to
absorb water and nutrients (Kohnke, 1968). Hence, the fertilizer applied before planting
was probably not absorbed by the potato plants.
Phosphorous content of the soil on the other hand decreased from 360 ppm to 315
ppm. This might be the only element absorbed by the plant at its early stage of growth.
Plant Survival
Percent survival of the different genotypes was taken at 30 days after planting
(Table 3). No significant differences was observed among the genotypes. However,
380251.17 had the highest percentage survival despite the strong wind and rain.
Table 2. Soil analysis before planting and after harvesting
SOIL PROPERTY
BEFORE PLANTING
AFTER HARVESTING
PH 6.23
6.47
Organic matter (%)
7.00
10.00
Nitrogen (%)
0.35
0.50
Phosphorous (ppm)
360
315
Potassium (ppm)
136
572
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
14
Table 3. Plant survival of the different potato genotypes at 30 days after planting
PLANT SURVIVAL
GENOTYPE
(%)
380251.17 98
384558.10 73
676070 93
Ganza 84
285411.22 79
573275 67
676089 89
5.19.2.2 90
575003 95
13.1.1 85
CV (%)
13.57
Plant Height
Significant differences were observed in the plant height of the different potato
genotypes at 35 and 83 days after planting (Table 4). Initially, genotype 13.1.1 and
5.19.2.2 were the tallest while 384558.10 was the shortest but after 83 DAP 5.19.2.2
remained to be the tallest while 285411.22 turned out to be the shortest.
The differences of height among the genotypes could be attributed to their
genotypic characteristics.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
15
Table 4. Plant height of the different potato genotypes at 35 and 83 days after planting
HEIGHT (cm)
GENOTYPE
35 DAP
83 DAP
380251.17 8.1ee 23.3ab
384558.10 4.5fe 14.2bc
676070 8.3de 20.1ab
Ganza 8.7cd 15.5bc
285411.22 10.9be 6.7ce
573275 9.1ce 19.5be
676089 10.4be 23.3ab
5.19.2.2 11.3ae 31.9ae
575003 9.0ce 21.5ab
13.1.1 11.4ae 24.2ab
CV (%)
3.72
31.38
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Plant Vigor
Table 5 shows that plant vigor of different genotypes at 30 and 45 days after
planting. Statistical differences were observed among the genotypes at 45 DAP but not at
30 DAP. Genotypes 368025.17, 5.19.2.2 and 13.1.1 were found to be highly vigorous
while the other genotypes were either moderately vigorous or vigorous.
It was observed that at 45 DAP, genotype 380251.17 and 13.1.1 turned highly
vigorous even after they were rated as only vigorous and moderately vigorous at 30 DAP.
This occurrence might be due to the rejuvenation of the plants. Some of the plants from
these genotypes were observed to have produced new shoots.
There was a decrease in vigor in the remaining genotypes which could be due to
late blight infection.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
16
Table 5. Plant vigor of the different potato genotypes at 30 and 45 days after planting
PLANT VIGOR
GENOTYPE
30 DAP
45 DAP
380251.17 4
5a
384558.10 4
3c
676070 3
3c
Ganza 5
3c
285411.22 4
3c
573275 4
4b
676089 4
4b
5.19.2.2 5
5a
575003 3
3c
13.1.1 3
5a
CV (%)
24.91
13.21
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Canopy Cover
Table 6 shows the canopy cover of the plants at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after
planting. Significant differences were observed among the genotypes except at 45 DAP.
Genotype 13.1.1 consistently had the highest canopy cover until 75 DAP while
384558.10 had the lowest. The differences in canopy cover might be attributed to the
earliness or lateness of tuber formation of the different genotypes. It was found that
genotypes which tuberize later develop more canopies of longer duration than genotypes
twhich tuberize earlier (Cardesa et al., 2001).
Furthermore, an increasing trend of canopy cover can be observed from genotypes
13.1.1, 5.19.2.2, and 676089, which could be an indication of their resistance to late
blight infection. The rest of the genotypes had decreased canopy cover except for
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
17
Table 6. Canopy cover of the ten different potato genotypes at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days
after planting
CANOPY COVER
GENOTYPE
30 DAP
45 DAP
60 DAP
75 DAP
380251.17 14abc 18 19bbc 18bcb
384558.10 5cbc 7 6dbc
4ebc
676070 10abc 12 15bcb 15bcd
Ganza 11abb 11 12bcd
8cdb
285411.22 8bcb 8 5dbc
2ebc
573275 9abc 10 10cdb
5ebc
676089 9abc 13 15bcb 17bcd
5.19.2.2 10abc 12 18bbc 20bbc
575003 6bcb 8 10cdb 10cde
13.1.1 10abc 16 27abc 36abc
CV (%)
29.38
31.57
28.70
21.37
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
676070 and 575003 which maintained the same canopy cover at 60 and 75 DAP. The
decrease in canopy might in turn be an indication of susceptibility to late blight injection.
Leaf Miner Incidence
Leaf miner incidence was absent among the genotypes which might be due to the
low temperature and high relative humidity in the farm.
Late Blight Incidence
Table 7 shows significant differences on the resistance of the ten potato genotypes
to late blight at 45, 60 and 75 days after planting. Initially at 45 DAP, most of the potato
genotypes were rated resistant to moderately resistant except for 285411.22 which was
moderately susceptible to late blight. At 75 DAP, 13.1.1, 676089 and 5.19.2.2 remained
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
18
resistant while the rest of the genotypes were either moderately resistant or susceptible to
the disease.
The resistance of the genotypes were also observed to decrease at 45 to 75 DAP
except for 13.1.1. Furthermore, genotypes 676089 and 575003 remained resistant and
moderately resistant at 75 DAP which might be due to the botanical fungicide (Virtuoso)
sprayed at 55 DAP.
Table 7. Late blight incidence of the ten different potato genotypes at 45, 60 and 75 days
after planting
LATE BLIGHT INCIDENCE
GENOTYPE
DAYS AFTER PLANTING
45
60
75
380251.17 2d
3c
4bcd
384558.10 3cd
4bc
5bc
676070 3cd
3c
4bcd
Ganza 5ab
5b
6b
285411.22 6a
7a
8a
573275 4bc
3c
5bc
676089 3cd
3c
3cd
5.19.2.2 3cd
3c
4bcd
575003 3cd
4bc
4bcd
13.1.1 2d
3c
2d
CV (%)
24.74
26.75
26.22
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Scale and description: 1–Highly resistant; 2-3–Resistant; 4-5–Moderately resistance; 6-7–
Moderately susceptible, 8-9–Susceptible.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
19
Marketable, Non-marketable and Total Yield of Potato Tubers
Significant differences can be observed in the marketable, non-marketable and
total yield of tubers of the ten different potato genotypes (Table 8). Genotype 13.1.1
produced the highest marketable and non-marketable tubers while 384558.10 produced
the lowest marketable and non-marketable tubers. Moreover, it follows that 13.1.1
produced the highest weight of total yield and 384558.10 produced the lowest total yield.
Fig. 2 shows the harvested tubers from the different genotypes.
The genotype with the highest yield (13.1.1) was also found to be the most
resistant to late blight infection and had the highest canopy cover.
Table 8. Marketable, non-marketable and total yield of potato tubers
YIELD (g)/5 m2
GENOTYPE
NON-
MARKETABLE
TOTAL
MARKETABLE
380251.17 1,580b 77ab 1,657b
384558.10 228e 15c 243f
676070 607de 46bc 653cdef
Ganza 477de 28bc 505def
285411.22 249e 55abc 304ef
573275 781cd 48bc 829cde
676089 880cd 58abc 9.38cd
5.19.2.2 1,124bc 33bc 1,157c
575003 465de 71ab 536def
13.1.1 2,570a 103a 2,673a
CV (%)
15.79
30.14
29.38
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
20
Potato Genotypes Selected by the Farmer
Out of the ten potato genotypes, the farmer selected only 380251.17, 676070,
5.19.2.2, and 13.1.1 (Table 9). These genotypes were selected due to their resistance to
late blight, medium to large tuber size, attractive skin color (676070), and high plant
vigor. Furthermore, these genotypes are considered adapted to the area since it can
withstand the unfavorable environment condition in the farm.
Table 9. Potato genotypes selected by the farmer and his reasons for selection
POTATO GENOTYPES
REASONS FOR SELECTION
380251.17
Resistant to late blight, medium sized tubers, highly
vigorous, and can withstand the unfavorable
environmental condition in the farm.
676070
Resistant to late blight, large tubers even, uniform number
of tubers per plant, and attractive red skin color.
5.19.2.2
Resistant to late blight, medium sized tubers, highly
vigorous, and can withstand the unfavorable
environmental condition in the farm.
13.1.1
Resistant to late blight, large sized tubers, highly vigorous,
and can withstand to the unfavorable environmental
condition in the farm.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
21
380251.17
573275
384558.10
676089
676070
5.19.2.2
Ganza
575003
285411.22
13.1.1
Fig. 2. Tubers of ten potato genotypes harvested at 90 DAP
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
22
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 10a shows the cost of producing seed tubers from the ten potato genotypes
in an area of 5 m2. Genotype 13.1.1 had the highest ROCE of 896 % while 384558.10
had the lowest ROCE of 22 %. This result indicates that the genotypes with the highest
yield also had the highest profit.
Most of the potato genotypes had a negative return on cash expense (% ROCE) if
produced as table potatoes (Table 10b). This negative result might be due to the small
tuber sizes and low weight of tubers of the different genotypes. Genotype 13.1.1,
however, had a positive albeit low ROCE (%). This might be due to the presence of a
few large tubers which contributed to the increased weight of the genotype.
Table 10a. Cost and return analysis of the ten potato genotypes per 5 m2 for seed tuber
production
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
GENOTYPE
YIELD
ROCE
SALE
EXPENSES
INCOME
(No./5m2)
(%)
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
380251.17
93 372 98 274 280
384558.10
30 120 98 22 22
676070
72 288 98 190 194
Ganza
55 220 98 122 124
285411.22
52 208 98 110 112
573275
64 256 98 158 161
676089
62 248 98 150 153
5.19.2.2
112 448 98 350 357
575003
47 188 98 90 92
13.1.1
244 976 98 878 896
Note: Php 4.00 is the selling price per G1 tuber.
Total expenses include labor cost, cost of planting material, fertilizer and botanical
fungicide (Virtouso).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
23
Table 10c shows that the return on cash expense of seed tubers is much higher
than the return on cash expense for table potato. This result indicates that production of
the ten different potato genotypes for G1 seed tubers is more profitable.
Table 10b. Cost and return analysis of the ten potato genotypes per 5 m2 for table potato
production
TOTAL
ROCE (%)
GENOTYPE
GROSS SALE
NET INCOME
EXPENSES
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
380251.17 63
98
-35
-36
384558.10 9
98
-89
-91
676070 24
98
-74
-76
Ganza 19
98
-79
-81
285411.22 10
98
-88
-90
573275 31
98
-67
-68
676089 35
98
-53
-54
5.19.2.2 45
98
-53
-54
575003 19
98
-79
-81
13.1.1 103
98
5
5
Note: Php 4.00 is the selling price of table potato tubers per kilogram.
Total expenses include cost of labor, fertilizer, planting material and botanical fungicide
(Virtouso).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
24
Table 10c. Cost and return analysis of the ten potato genotypes per 5 m2 for both seed
and table potato production
ROCE (%)
GENOTYPE
SEED TUBER
TABLE POTATO
380251.17 280
-36
384558.10 22
-91
676070 194
-76
Ganza 124
-81
285411.22 112
-90
573275 161
-68
676089 153
-54
5.19.2.2 357
-54
575003 92
-81
13.1.1 896
5
Dry Matter Content
Table 11 shows the significant differences in the dry matter content of the
different genotypes. Highest dry matter content was obtained from genotypes 5.19.2.2
and 13.1.1. The differences of dry matter among the genotypes are due to varietal
characteristics (Hesen, 1985) since dry matter content of the tubers is related to the potato
variety.
Furthermore, genotypes 5.19.2.2 and 13.1.1 may be good for chips and French fry
processing since high dry matter content of potatoes results in lower oil content of the
fried product (Hesen, 1985).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
25
Table 11. Dry matter content of the ten different potato genotypes
DRY MATTER
GENOTYPE
(%)
380251.17 17c
384558.10 18b
676070 16d
Ganza 17c
285411.22 17c
573275 17c
676089 18b
5.19.2.2 19a
575003 18b
13.1.1 19a
CV (%)
2.34
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
26
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted in an organic farm at Sinipsip, Buguias, Benguet to
evaluate the growth and yield performance of different potato genotype in an organic
farm, to identify the best performing potato genotypes based on yield, to determine the
profitability of the different potato genotypes, and to determine which of the potato
genotypes will be selected by the organic farmer.
Temperature was low and the relative humidity was high in the organic farm
during the growth of the different potato genotypes. The soil pH, organic matter,
nitrogen and potassium increased after harvest while the phosphorous content of the soil
decreased.
No significant differences were observed among the genotypes but 380251.17 had
the highest percentage survival. Moreover, genotype 5.19.2.2 was the tallest at 35 and 83
days after planting. Genotypes 380251.17, 5.19.2.2, and 13.1.1 also were found to be
highly vigorous while the rest were either moderately vigorous or vigorous.
An increasing trend of canopy cover was observed from genotypes 13.1.1,
5.19.2.2 and 676089 which could be an indication of resistance to late blight.
Genotypes 380251.17, 676070, 5.19.2.2 were selected by the farmer due to their
resistance to late blight, medium to large tubers and high plant vigor. These genotypes
can also withstand the unfavorable environmental condition in the farm.
Genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE (%) in both seed and table potato.
Furthermore, genotypes 13.1.1 and 5.19.2.2 significantly had the highest dry matter
content. These genotypes might therefore be good for processing.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
27
Conclusion
Based on the results, genotype 13.1.1 which had the highest canopy cover and
highest resistance to late blight infection also had the highest total yield. Furthermore,
genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE (%) for both seed and table potato. Thus, it
appears that wide canopy cover and resistance to late blight infection may enhance better
yield.
Genotype 13.1.1 is therefore adopted and could be produced at Sinipsip, Buguias.
In addition, genotypes 380251.17, 676070 and 5.19.2.2 might also be produced since
these genotypes were selected by the farmer.
A low yield was observed in most of the genotypes which could be due to the
very low temperature and high relative humidity at Sinipsip. This occurrence may
explain the negative values of ROCE (%) for table potatoes.
Recommendation
Genotype 13.1.1 can be recommended for both seed and table production in
Sinipsip, Buguias, Benguet.
Furthermore, to verify the results gathered, the genotypes could be planted during
the months of February to May since conditions are more favorable for potato production
during these months.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
28
LITERATURE CITED
BAUTISTA, O. K. and R. C. MABESA. 1972. Vegetable production. University of the
Philippine, Los Banos (UPLB). P. 16.
CARDESA, Y., WONG YON CHEONG, K. and N. GOVINDEN. 2001. Tropical potato
clones with larger canopies do not effect the growth, yield and yield components
of intercropped sugar cane. Http://www.bioline.org.br/request?cs01035.
CAGAMPANG, I. C. and H. C. LANTICAN. 1977. Field production guidelines in the
Philippines: Multiple cropping. University of the Philippines, Los Banos (UPLB),
Laguna. P. 177.
CALDWELL, B. 1993. Production and marketing of organic potato New York.
Extension Education, South Central NY Fruit and Vegetable Program. P. 61.
CIP. 2000. Compiled data sheet (loose sheet). International Potato Center (CIP). 3 pages.
DONAHUE, R. L. 1971. Soils and introductory to soils and plant growth. 3rd ed.
Interstate Printers and publishers, Inc. Danville, Illinoines. Pp. 226-227.
HESEN, J.C. 1985. Potato processing. Institute for storage and processing of
agricultural product (IBVL). Wageningen, Netherlands. P. 8.
HENFLING, J. W. 1982. Field screening procedures to evaluate resistance to late blight.
technology evaluation. Series no. 1982-05. International Potato Center
(CIP).
Lima, Peru. P. 11.
HUNTSINGER, T. 1995. Sustainable potato production. University of New Castle upon
Tyre. 15: 4-5.
KOHNKE. H. 1968. Soil physics. Tata Mc Graw-hill Publishing Company LTD.
Bombay, New Delhi: Pp. 171-187.
LANG, S. S. 2005. Growing potato organically: if it is profitable. Cornell University
News Service. Http//www.CUnewsservice.edu.com.
MADDER, P. and A. FLIEBACH. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic
farming. Science V. 296, n. 5573. P. 321.
PANDOSEN, M. .D. 1980. Effect of different rates of N, K and organic fertilizer on the
yield of Irish potato. BSA Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
29
POINCELOT, R. P. 1986. Toward a more sustainable agriculture. AVI Publishing
Company, Inc. WestPoint, Connecticut. P. 75.
RASCO, E. T and V. R. AMANTE. 1994. Sweet potato variety evaluation. Southeast
Asia Program for Potato Research and Development (SAPRRAD). P. 20.
RHAODES, R. E. 1982. The incredible potato. National Geographic. P. 30.
SCHULTZ, W. J. 1982. Great taste in potatoes. Organic gardening. A Prentice
Hall/Macmillan Company. P. 5.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
30
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Percent survival of the different potato genotypes at 30 days
after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 100
95
100
285 98
384558.10
48 78 93 219 73
676070 85
100
95
280
93
Ganza
90 83 78 251 84
285411.22
80 63 95 238 79
573275
75 58 73 206 67
676089
100 93 75 268 89
5.19.2.2
83 88 98 269 90
575003
85 100 100 285 95
13.1.1
75 83 98 256 85
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
385.067
192.533
Treatment 9
2,488.033
276.448
2.05ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
2,488.267
134.904
TOTAL 29
5,301.367
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.57 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
31
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Plant vigor of the different potato genotypes at 30 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 5 3 5 13 4
384558.10 5 3 3 11 4
676070
3 3 3 9 3
Ganza
5 5 5 15 5
285411.22 5 5 3 13 4
573275
3 3 5 11 4
676089
5 3 3 11 4
5.19.2.2
5 5 5 15 5
575003
3 3 5 11 3
13.1.1
3 5 3 11 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.800
0.400
Treatment 9
11.333
1.259
1.27ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
17.867
0.993
TOTAL 29
30.000
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 24.91 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
32
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Plant vigor of the different potato genotypes at 45 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 5 5 5 15 5a
384558.10 3 3 3 9 3c
676070
3 3 3 9 3c
Ganza
3 3 3 9 3c
285411.22 3 3 3 9 3c
573275
5 3 3 11 4b
676089
5 5 3 13 4b
5.19.2.2
5 5 5 15 5a
575003
3 3 3 9 3c
13.1.1
5 5 5 15 5a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.800
0.400
Treatment 9
23.467
2.607
10.35** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
4.533
0.252
TOTAL 29
28.800
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.21 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
33
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Plant height of the different potato genotypes at 35 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
7.8 8.0 8.5 24.3 8.1e e
384558.10
4.9 4.5 4.1 13.5 4.5f e
676070
8.4 8.4 8.0 24.8 8.3de
Ganza
9.1 8.9 8.0 26.0 8.7cd
285411.22
11.7 11.0 10.0 32.7 10.9b e
573275
9.0 9.3 9.2 27.3 9.1c e
676089
10.7 10.5 10.0 31.2 10.4b e
5.19.2.2
11.7 11.2 11.1 34.0 11.3a e
575003
9.2 9.0 8.9 27.1 9.0c e
13.1.1
11.8 11.5 10.9 34.2 11.4a e
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1.730
0.865
Treatment 9
114.614
12.735
109.44** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
2.094
0.116
TOTAL 29
118.438
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 3.72 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
34
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Plant height of the different potato genotypes at 83 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
23.2 23.3 23.5 70.0 23.3ab
384558.10
16.0 13.8 12.7 42.6 14.2bc
676070
23.2 20.0 17.2 60.4 20.1ab
Ganza 15.3
22.3
9.0
46.6
15.5bc
285411.22 0
20.00
0
20.00
6.7cc
573275
26.6 16.0 16.0 58.6 19.5bc
676089
28.7 24.8 16.3 69.8 23.3ab
5.19.2.2
29.3 31.1 35.3 95.7 31.9ac
575003
24.5 24.3 15.8 64.6 21.5ab
13.1.1
11.4 34.1 27.1 72.6 24.2ab
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
161.406
80.703
Treatment 9
1,244.936
138.326
3.50* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
711.081
39.504
TOTAL 29
2,117.423
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 31.38 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
35
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 30 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 20 7
14 41
14acc
384558.10 6 4 4 14 5ccc
676070
16 6 7 29 10abc
Ganza 13
9
12
34
11abc
285411.22 10 9 5 24 8bcc
573275
15 5 8 28 9abc
676089
15 6 6 27 9abc
5.19.2.2 12
8
10
30
10abc
575003
7 7 5 19 6bcc
13.1.1 12
11
6
29
10abc
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
178.067
89.033
Treatment 9
167.500
18.611
2.57* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
130.600
7.256
TOTAL 29
476.167
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 29.38 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
36
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 45 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 23 13 16 54 18
384558.10 7 8 6 21 7
676070 17
10
9
36
12
Ganza
14 10 10 34 11
285411.22 7
10
6 23 8
573275
15 5 9 29 10
676089 20
12
8
40
13
5.19.2.2
12 12 13 37 12
575003
9 9 6 24 8
13.1.1 24
15
8
47
16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
207.200
103.600
Treatment 9
2,306.000
256.222
1.47ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
3,140.800
174.489
TOTAL 29
5,654.000
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 31.57 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
37
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 60 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 21 14 23 58 19bdd
384558.10 3 9 7 19 6ddd
676070
17 14 13 44 15bcd
Ganza 12
14
9
35
12bcd
285411.22 4 5 6 15 5ddd
573275
16 6 9 31 10cdd
676089 22
15
9
46
15bcd
5.19.2.2
17 16 21 54 18bdd
575003 11
13
7
31
10cdd
13.1.1
34 23 23 80 27add
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
56.267
28.133
Treatment 9
1,136.033
126.226
8.08** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
281.067
15.615
TOTAL 29
1,473.367
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 28.70 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
38
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 75 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 23 9
21 53
18bcd
384558.10 5 4 4 13 4edv
676070
19 12 13 44 15bcd
Ganza 4
16
4
24
8dcd
285411.22 4 3 0 7 2edd
573275
8 2 5 10 5edd
676089 28
16
8
52
17bcd
5.19.2.2
20 15 25 60 20bdd
575003 12
13
6
31
10cde
13.1.1
38 38 31 101 36adv
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
104.867
52.433
Treatment 9
2,664.800
296.089
11.20** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
475.800
26.433
TOTAL 29
3,245.467
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 21.37 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
39
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Late blight incidence of the different potato genotypes at 45
days after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 1 2 2 5 2d
384558.10 2 5 3 10 3cd
676070
3 3 3 9 3cd
Ganza
5 4 5 14 5ab
285411.22 7 5 6 18 6a
573275
3 4 4 11 4bc
676089
3 4 3 10 3cd
5.19.2.2
3 4 3 10 3cd
575003
2 3 3 8 3cd
13.1.1
3 1 3 7 2d
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.600
0.300
Treatment 9
34.867
4.430
6.26** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
12.733
0.707
TOTAL 29
53.200
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 24.74 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
40
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Late blight incidence of the different potato genotypes at 60
days after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 3 3 3 9 3cc
384558.10 7 3 3 13 4bc
676070
3 4 3 10 3cc
Ganza
6 5 5 16 5bc
285411.22 8 6 6 20 7ac
573275
4 3 3 10 3cc
676089
3 3 3 9 3cc
5.19.2.2
3 3 3 9 3cc
575003
5 3 3 11 4bc
13.1.1
3 3 2 8 3cc
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
7.400
3.700
Treatment 9
38.800
4.311
4.17** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
18.600
1.033
TOTAL 29
64.800
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 26.75 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
41
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Late blight incidence of the different potato genotypes at 75
days after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 3 4 5 12 4bcd
384558.10 6 7 2 15 5bcc
676070
3 4 4 11 4bcd
Ganza
6 5 7 18 6bcc
285411.22 7 8 9 24 8acc
573275
3 6 6 15 5bcc
676089
2 3 4 9 3cdc
5.19.2.2
4 5 4 13 4bcd
575003
3 4 4 11 4bcd
13.1.1
2 3 2 7 2dcc
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
5.600
2.800
Treatment 9
70.833
7.870
6.65** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
25.067
1.393
TOTAL 29
101.500
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 26.22 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
42
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Weight of marketable tubers of the different potato genotypes
per 5m2 (g)
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
2,000 1,043 1,697 4,740 1,580be
384558.10
267 178 240 685 228ee
676070
632 522 667 1,821 607de
Ganza
667 364 400 1,431 477de
285411.22
325 182 240 747 249ee
573275
1,500 343 500 2,343 781cd
676089
1,520 720 400 2,640 880cd
5.19.2.2 1,667
667
1,037
3,371
1,124bc
575003
490 433 473 1,396 465de
13.1.1
2,609 2,727 2,375 7,711 2,570ae
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
DEGREES
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1,142,080.267 571,040.133
Treatment 9
13,436,513.500 1,548,501.500
19.25** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
1,447,676.400 80,426.467
TOTAL 29
1+,526,270.167
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 15.79 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
43
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Weight of marketable tubers of the different potato genotypes
per 5m2 (g)
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 114 87 30 231 77abb
384558.10 0
4
40
44
15eb
676070
84 26 27 137 46bcb
Ganza
17 18 50 85 28bcb
285411.22
50 36 80 166 55abc
573275 67
6
67
140
48bcb
676089
56 64 53 173 58abc
5.19.2.2
22 33 44 99 33bcb
575003 40
100
73
213
71abb
13.1.1 87
91
130
308
103abb
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
835.800
417.900
Treatment 9
17,896.133
1,988.459
2.66* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
13,454.867
747.493
TOTAL 29
32,186.800
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 30.14 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
44
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Total yield of the different potato genotypes per 5m2 (g)
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
2,114.4 1,130.4 1,727.2 4,972.0 1,657b
384558.10
266.8 182.4 280.0 729.2 243f
676070 716.0
548.0
6932.2
1,957.2
653cdef
Ganza
683.2 382.0 450.0 1,515.2 505def
285411.22
374 218.4 320.0 912.0 304ef
573275
1,520.3 400.0 566.8 2,487.1 829cde
676089
1,576.0 784.0 453.2 2,813.2 938cd
5.19.2.2 1,688.8
700.0
1,0813.6
3,470.4
1,157c
575003
530.0 533.2 544.8 1,608.0 536def
13.1.1
2,695.6 2,818.0 2,505.2 8,018.8 2,673a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
720.319
360.160
Treatment 9
9,104.912
1,011.657
20.14** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
904.201
50.233
TOTAL 29
10,729.433
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 29.68 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
45
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Dry matter content (%) of the different potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
17 17 17 51 17c
384558.10
18 18 18 54 18b
676070
16 16 16 48 16d
Ganza
17 17 17 51 17c
285411.22
17 17 18 52 17c
573275
17 17 16 50 17c
676089
17 18 18 53 18b
5.19.2.2
19 19 20 58 19a
575003
18 18 18 54 18b
13.1.1
19 20 19 58 19a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.267
0.133
Treatment 9 31.633
3.575
20.63** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
3.067
0.170
TOTAL 29
34.967
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 2.37 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
HECTOR, GAYOMBA C. APRIL 2006. Growth and Yield of Promising Potato
Genotypes Grown in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Ms. Esther Josephine D. Sagalla, BSc
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to evaluate the growth and yield of different potato genotypes in
an organic farm, to identify the best performing potato genotypes based on yield, to
determine the profitability of the different potato genotypes and to determine which of
the potato genotypes will be selected by the organic farmer.
The study revealed that 13.1.1 had the highest canopy cover, highest resistance to
late blight and highest total yield. Genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE for both
seed and table potato production.
Genotype 13.1.1 could be produced at Sinipsip, Buguias. Genotypes 38025.17,
676070, and 5.19.2.2 could also be produced in the area since these genotypes were
selected by the farmer.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Varietal Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Productivity of Organically Grown Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Effects of Organic Fertilizer on the Growth of Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Temperature and Relative Humidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Soil Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Plant Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Plant Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Plant Vigor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Leaf Miner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Late Blight Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Marketable, Non-marketable and Total Yield of
Potato Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Potato Genotypes Selected by the Farmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Cost and Return Analysis of the Ten Potato
ii
Genotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Dry Matter Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
iii
INTRODUCTION
Potato is considered a world crop since it is produced in 130 nations. It is grown
from sea level to 13,000 feet, and its edible dry matter accounts for a higher volume of
the food consumed in the world than fish and meat combined (Rhaodes, 1982). Potato
can also give 11,000 kg or more of tubers per hectare even in underdeveloped agricultural
situations (Schultz, 1982).
In Benguet, Mountain Province, and some other areas where potatoes and other
crops are grown, most of the farmers are using chemicals in farming. They use synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides as a method to increase production and reduce yield loss.
However, these practices resulted in persistence or resistance of some pests and diseases,
soil degradation, low yield and water pollution.
To solve some of these problems and to increase profit, some farmers in Benguet
are now practicing organic farming. Instead of using chemicals, farmers employ crop
rotation, biological control, and others to reduce pest and disease incidence. They also
practice green manuring and use compost or organic fertilizer to sustain the fertility of
their soil. As a result, higher yields are produced (Lang, 2005) and higher profit is
gained.
Many farmers believe that potato has a potential for sustainable, non-chemical
farming since it fits well with many crop rotations, and does very well with natural
fertilizers. However, growing potato organically need a potential variety which is able to
produce high yield.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
2
The objectives of the study is to:
1. evaluate the growth and yield of different potato genotypes grown in an
organic farm;
2. identify the best performing potato genotypes based on yield;
3. determine the profitability of the different potato genotypes; and
4. determine which of the potato genotypes will be selected by the organic
farmer.
The study was conducted in an organic farm at Sinipsip, Buguias, Benguet from
November 2005 to February 2006.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Varietal Evaluation
To have a high yield, selecting a variety is necessary. Rasco and Amante (1994)
stated that variety evaluation is a process of documenting variety traits that can be used to
distinguish one variety from other varieties. Furthermore, Work and Carew (1995) cited
that varietal evaluation is done to observe characters such as yield, earliness, vigor,
maturity and quality.
Bautista and Mabesa (1972) suggested that a variety to be selected should be high
yielding, resistant to pest and disease, early maturing, and requires less input. In
addition, Cagampang and Lantican (1977) observed that the choice of variety is
important. The wise use of an improved and well-selected variety may result to
tremendous increase in yield.
Productivity of Organically Grown Crops
Yields in an organic farm during drought are comparable to or slightly better than
in a conventional farm. Organic farming yields would vary from moderately less than to
nearly comparable with conventional farming yields (Poincelot, 1986).
Organic farming produced either the same yield or lower but consume less
energy. Crop yields may be 20 % lower in the organic system, but input of fertilizer and
energy is reduced by 34 % to 53 % and pesticides input by 77 % (Madder and Fliebach,
2002).
Scientist and farmers agree that it is economically feasible to grow potatoes
successfully and at the same time improve the land’s productivity and fertility. Twenty
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
4
thousand to forty thousand pounds per acre is the usual range of organic yields while
conventional growers, often on muck soils, average around twenty seven thousand
pounds per acre (Caldwell, 1993). Furthermore, organic potatoes can be grown on a
large scale without commercial pesticides and standard fertilizers. However, yields are
lower than conventionally produced potatoes.
Huntsinger (1995) cited that in carefully monitored fields tests in 1990, organic
farming yield an average of twenty one thousand two hundred pounds of potatoes per
acre (over three tested varieties) while conventional farming methods yielded thirty two
thousand eight hundred pounds per acre.
Effects of Organic Fertilizer on the Growth of Crops
Donahue (1971) reported that organic matter supply some of the nutrients needed
by the growing plants as well as hormones and antibiotics. The nutrients are released in
harmony with the needs of plants. When environmental conditions are favorable, rapid
growth may happen.
Pandosen (1980) found out that organic matter contains nutrients, which can be
available through the work of microorganisms. The nutrients from the organic fertilizer
are supplemented by inorganic fertilizer mainly nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and
potassium (K). Once they are available, they are translocated by potassium thereby
influencing the growth of plants.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
5
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in a 150 m2 area which was thoroughly prepared. The
area was divided into three blocks containing ten plots measuring 1 x 5 meters each to
accommodate all the ten potato genotypes ( Figure 1).
The potato genotypes that were observed are the following:
GENOTYPE ORIGIN
380251.17 CIP,
Peru
384558.10 CIP,
Peru
676070 CIP,
Peru
Ganza Philippines
285411.22 CIP,
Peru
573275 CIP,
Peru
676089 CIP,
Peru
5.19.2.2 CIP,
Peru
575003 CIP,
Peru
13.1.1 CIP,
Peru
Preparation of Planting Materials
Clean mother plants were established and cut after 12 to 14 days. The stem
cuttings were then rooted in plastic trays containing sterilized black subsoil and compost.
After 8-12 days, the rooted cuttings were planted in the field.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
6
Layout and Planting
The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with
three replications. The planting distance was 25 x 30 cm between hills and rows.
The Farmer and the Farm
Mr. Johnny F. Osting is organic practitioner for almost six years. He updates
himself by attending seminars and trainings to gain additional knowledge and skills on
organic farming. He last attended the 1st Cordillera Organic Agriculture Congress in
January of 2006.
His farm which is almost flat and located on the top of a mountain is 2,350.31
meters above sea level. The crops he previously planted were carrots and raddish. The
soil type of his farm is sandy loam.
His farm was conventional for almost ten years and transitioned to an organic
farm four years ago.
Cultural Management Practices
Fertilizer application was done before planting. The basal fertilizer that was used
is a combination of compost chicken manure, sunflower and other weeds. Botanical
fungicide was used only during the occurrence of late blight.
All cultural management practices were employed uniformly to all plots as
needed throughout the duration of the study.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
7
Data Gathered
1. Temperature and relative humidity. The temperature and relative humidity of
the area were taken every after two weeks using a Compact Sling Psychrometer.
2. Soil analysis. The nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, soil pH, and organic
matter content of the soil were taken before planting and after harvesting.
3. Percentage survival. This was taken one week after transplanting and
computed using the formula:
Number of surviving plants
Total num
% Survival =
X 100
ber of plants planted
4. Plant height. Initial and final height was taken one week after hilling up and
one week before harvest respectively.
5. Plant vigor. This was recorded at 30 and 45 days after transplanting using the
rating scale of 1-5 as follows:
RATING DESCRIPTION
5 Highly
vigorous
4 Vigorous
3 Moderate
vigor
2 Poor
vigor
1
Very poor vigor
6. Canopy cover. It was taken 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAP by using a wooden frame
120 x 60 cm in size and have equally sized 12 x 6 cm grids.
7. Leaf miner incidence. The appearance of insects was observed at 30, 45, 60,
and 75 DAP using the following scale (CIP, 2000):
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
8
RATING DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1
Less infested (1-20 %)
Resistant
2
Infested (20-40 %)
Moderately resistance
3
Moderate infested (41-60 %)
Intermediate
4 Severely
infested
(61-80
%) Moderately
susceptible
5 Most
serious
Susceptible
8. Late blight incidence. Observation was done at 45, 60 and 75 DAP using the
following scale (Henfling 1982):
CIP
DESCRIPTION OF CORRESPONDING
BLIGHT
SCALE*
SYMPTOMS
0
1
No blight can be observed.
0.1-1.0
1
Very few plants are affected with lesions.
1.1-2.0
2
Not more than two lesions per 10 m of row
(+/=30 plants).
3.1-10. 0
3
Up to 3 small lesions per plant or 1 lesion per 2
leaflet attacked.
10.1-24.0
4
Most plants are visibly attacked by late blight, 1
in 3 leaflets infected but few multiple infection
per leaflet.
25.0-29.0
5
Newly every leaflet have lesions, multiple
infection per leaflet is common, fields or plot
looks green but plants in plot are infected.
50.0-74.0
6
All plants have blight and half area is infected,
plots look green, freckled and brown blight is very
obvious.
75.0-90.0
7
As previous, but three quarters of each plant
blighted. Lower branches may be overwhelming
killed off, and the only green leaves if any are at
the top of the plants. Shade of the plant maybe
more spindly due to extensive foliage loss. Plots
look either brown or green.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
9
91.0-97.0
8
Some leaves and most stems are green. Plots look
brown with some green patches.
98.0-99.9
9
Few green leaves, almost all that remain are those
with blight lesions. Many stem lesion, plot looks
brown. All leaves and stem are dead.
100
9
All leaves and stem are dead.
*Description: 1-Highly resistant; 2-3 Resistant; 4-5 Moderately resistant;
6- Moderately susceptible; 8-9 Susceptible.
9. Weight of marketable tubers per 5 m2 (g). All tubers with marketable quality
were weighed at harvest.
10. Weight of non-marketable tubers per 5 m2 (g). Tubers which were less than
11 g, cracked, deformed, rotten, and damaged by pest were weighed at harvest.
11. Total yield per 5 m2 (g). This was taken by adding the weight of non-
marketable and marketable tubers.
12. Selection of the farmer. The potato genotypes which were selected by the
organic farmer and his reasons for selection were noted.
13. Return on cash expense (ROCE) per 5 m2. This was computed using the
formula:
Net Return
Expense
ROCE =
X 100
14. Dry matter content (%). Dry matter content of potato tubers was taken using
the following formula:
% Dry Matter = 100 % - % Moisture content
Where:
Fresh weight – Oven dry weight
% Mois
ture content =
Fresh weight
X 100
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
10
Data Analysis
All quantitative data was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
differences among the treatment means will be tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test (DMRT).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
11
Figure 1. Overview of the experiment 35 days after planting
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Temperature and Relative Humidity
Table 1 shows the temperature and relative humidity during the growth and
development of the plants. The lowest temperature was found in the 2nd week of
February whereas, the highest was during the 4th week of December.
Relative humidity (%) was found to be highest during the 2nd week of February
and lowest in the 3rd week of January. The location was observed to be always cloudy
and windy which might be due to the high elevation of the farm.
These conditions were observed to adversely affect the performance of the crop
during its production.
Table 1. Temperature and relative humidity in the farm from planting until harvesting of
potatoes
TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
(oC)
(%)
November 2005
4th week
13.8
95
December 2005
2nd week
13.3
94
4th week
15.0
90
January 2006
2nd week
13.3
94
4th week
13.5
72
February 2006
2nd week
9.5
100
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
13
Soil Analysis
The soil analysis before planting and after harvesting is shown in Table 2. The
soil pH, organic matter, nitrogen and potassium increased after harvest. This may be
indirectly due to the low temperature of the soil. Low soil temperature causes crop roots
to be stunted, stubby and have few branches, thus reducing the ability of the roots to
absorb water and nutrients (Kohnke, 1968). Hence, the fertilizer applied before planting
was probably not absorbed by the potato plants.
Phosphorous content of the soil on the other hand decreased from 360 ppm to 315
ppm. This might be the only element absorbed by the plant at its early stage of growth.
Plant Survival
Percent survival of the different genotypes was taken at 30 days after planting
(Table 3). No significant differences was observed among the genotypes. However,
380251.17 had the highest percentage survival despite the strong wind and rain.
Table 2. Soil analysis before planting and after harvesting
SOIL PROPERTY
BEFORE PLANTING
AFTER HARVESTING
PH 6.23
6.47
Organic matter (%)
7.00
10.00
Nitrogen (%)
0.35
0.50
Phosphorous (ppm)
360
315
Potassium (ppm)
136
572
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
14
Table 3. Plant survival of the different potato genotypes at 30 days after planting
PLANT SURVIVAL
GENOTYPE
(%)
380251.17 98
384558.10 73
676070 93
Ganza 84
285411.22 79
573275 67
676089 89
5.19.2.2 90
575003 95
13.1.1 85
CV (%)
13.57
Plant Height
Significant differences were observed in the plant height of the different potato
genotypes at 35 and 83 days after planting (Table 4). Initially, genotype 13.1.1 and
5.19.2.2 were the tallest while 384558.10 was the shortest but after 83 DAP 5.19.2.2
remained to be the tallest while 285411.22 turned out to be the shortest.
The differences of height among the genotypes could be attributed to their
genotypic characteristics.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
15
Table 4. Plant height of the different potato genotypes at 35 and 83 days after planting
HEIGHT (cm)
GENOTYPE
35 DAP
83 DAP
380251.17 8.1ee 23.3ab
384558.10 4.5fe 14.2bc
676070 8.3de 20.1ab
Ganza 8.7cd 15.5bc
285411.22 10.9be 6.7ce
573275 9.1ce 19.5be
676089 10.4be 23.3ab
5.19.2.2 11.3ae 31.9ae
575003 9.0ce 21.5ab
13.1.1 11.4ae 24.2ab
CV (%)
3.72
31.38
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Plant Vigor
Table 5 shows that plant vigor of different genotypes at 30 and 45 days after
planting. Statistical differences were observed among the genotypes at 45 DAP but not at
30 DAP. Genotypes 368025.17, 5.19.2.2 and 13.1.1 were found to be highly vigorous
while the other genotypes were either moderately vigorous or vigorous.
It was observed that at 45 DAP, genotype 380251.17 and 13.1.1 turned highly
vigorous even after they were rated as only vigorous and moderately vigorous at 30 DAP.
This occurrence might be due to the rejuvenation of the plants. Some of the plants from
these genotypes were observed to have produced new shoots.
There was a decrease in vigor in the remaining genotypes which could be due to
late blight infection.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
16
Table 5. Plant vigor of the different potato genotypes at 30 and 45 days after planting
PLANT VIGOR
GENOTYPE
30 DAP
45 DAP
380251.17 4
5a
384558.10 4
3c
676070 3
3c
Ganza 5
3c
285411.22 4
3c
573275 4
4b
676089 4
4b
5.19.2.2 5
5a
575003 3
3c
13.1.1 3
5a
CV (%)
24.91
13.21
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Canopy Cover
Table 6 shows the canopy cover of the plants at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after
planting. Significant differences were observed among the genotypes except at 45 DAP.
Genotype 13.1.1 consistently had the highest canopy cover until 75 DAP while
384558.10 had the lowest. The differences in canopy cover might be attributed to the
earliness or lateness of tuber formation of the different genotypes. It was found that
genotypes which tuberize later develop more canopies of longer duration than genotypes
twhich tuberize earlier (Cardesa et al., 2001).
Furthermore, an increasing trend of canopy cover can be observed from genotypes
13.1.1, 5.19.2.2, and 676089, which could be an indication of their resistance to late
blight infection. The rest of the genotypes had decreased canopy cover except for
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
17
Table 6. Canopy cover of the ten different potato genotypes at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days
after planting
CANOPY COVER
GENOTYPE
30 DAP
45 DAP
60 DAP
75 DAP
380251.17 14abc 18 19bbc 18bcb
384558.10 5cbc 7 6dbc
4ebc
676070 10abc 12 15bcb 15bcd
Ganza 11abb 11 12bcd
8cdb
285411.22 8bcb 8 5dbc
2ebc
573275 9abc 10 10cdb
5ebc
676089 9abc 13 15bcb 17bcd
5.19.2.2 10abc 12 18bbc 20bbc
575003 6bcb 8 10cdb 10cde
13.1.1 10abc 16 27abc 36abc
CV (%)
29.38
31.57
28.70
21.37
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
676070 and 575003 which maintained the same canopy cover at 60 and 75 DAP. The
decrease in canopy might in turn be an indication of susceptibility to late blight injection.
Leaf Miner Incidence
Leaf miner incidence was absent among the genotypes which might be due to the
low temperature and high relative humidity in the farm.
Late Blight Incidence
Table 7 shows significant differences on the resistance of the ten potato genotypes
to late blight at 45, 60 and 75 days after planting. Initially at 45 DAP, most of the potato
genotypes were rated resistant to moderately resistant except for 285411.22 which was
moderately susceptible to late blight. At 75 DAP, 13.1.1, 676089 and 5.19.2.2 remained
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
18
resistant while the rest of the genotypes were either moderately resistant or susceptible to
the disease.
The resistance of the genotypes were also observed to decrease at 45 to 75 DAP
except for 13.1.1. Furthermore, genotypes 676089 and 575003 remained resistant and
moderately resistant at 75 DAP which might be due to the botanical fungicide (Virtuoso)
sprayed at 55 DAP.
Table 7. Late blight incidence of the ten different potato genotypes at 45, 60 and 75 days
after planting
LATE BLIGHT INCIDENCE
GENOTYPE
DAYS AFTER PLANTING
45
60
75
380251.17 2d
3c
4bcd
384558.10 3cd
4bc
5bc
676070 3cd
3c
4bcd
Ganza 5ab
5b
6b
285411.22 6a
7a
8a
573275 4bc
3c
5bc
676089 3cd
3c
3cd
5.19.2.2 3cd
3c
4bcd
575003 3cd
4bc
4bcd
13.1.1 2d
3c
2d
CV (%)
24.74
26.75
26.22
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Scale and description: 1–Highly resistant; 2-3–Resistant; 4-5–Moderately resistance; 6-7–
Moderately susceptible, 8-9–Susceptible.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
19
Marketable, Non-marketable and Total Yield of Potato Tubers
Significant differences can be observed in the marketable, non-marketable and
total yield of tubers of the ten different potato genotypes (Table 8). Genotype 13.1.1
produced the highest marketable and non-marketable tubers while 384558.10 produced
the lowest marketable and non-marketable tubers. Moreover, it follows that 13.1.1
produced the highest weight of total yield and 384558.10 produced the lowest total yield.
Fig. 2 shows the harvested tubers from the different genotypes.
The genotype with the highest yield (13.1.1) was also found to be the most
resistant to late blight infection and had the highest canopy cover.
Table 8. Marketable, non-marketable and total yield of potato tubers
YIELD (g)/5 m2
GENOTYPE
NON-
MARKETABLE
TOTAL
MARKETABLE
380251.17 1,580b 77ab 1,657b
384558.10 228e 15c 243f
676070 607de 46bc 653cdef
Ganza 477de 28bc 505def
285411.22 249e 55abc 304ef
573275 781cd 48bc 829cde
676089 880cd 58abc 9.38cd
5.19.2.2 1,124bc 33bc 1,157c
575003 465de 71ab 536def
13.1.1 2,570a 103a 2,673a
CV (%)
15.79
30.14
29.38
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
20
Potato Genotypes Selected by the Farmer
Out of the ten potato genotypes, the farmer selected only 380251.17, 676070,
5.19.2.2, and 13.1.1 (Table 9). These genotypes were selected due to their resistance to
late blight, medium to large tuber size, attractive skin color (676070), and high plant
vigor. Furthermore, these genotypes are considered adapted to the area since it can
withstand the unfavorable environment condition in the farm.
Table 9. Potato genotypes selected by the farmer and his reasons for selection
POTATO GENOTYPES
REASONS FOR SELECTION
380251.17
Resistant to late blight, medium sized tubers, highly
vigorous, and can withstand the unfavorable
environmental condition in the farm.
676070
Resistant to late blight, large tubers even, uniform number
of tubers per plant, and attractive red skin color.
5.19.2.2
Resistant to late blight, medium sized tubers, highly
vigorous, and can withstand the unfavorable
environmental condition in the farm.
13.1.1
Resistant to late blight, large sized tubers, highly vigorous,
and can withstand to the unfavorable environmental
condition in the farm.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
21
380251.17
573275
384558.10
676089
676070
5.19.2.2
Ganza
575003
285411.22
13.1.1
Fig. 2. Tubers of ten potato genotypes harvested at 90 DAP
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
22
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 10a shows the cost of producing seed tubers from the ten potato genotypes
in an area of 5 m2. Genotype 13.1.1 had the highest ROCE of 896 % while 384558.10
had the lowest ROCE of 22 %. This result indicates that the genotypes with the highest
yield also had the highest profit.
Most of the potato genotypes had a negative return on cash expense (% ROCE) if
produced as table potatoes (Table 10b). This negative result might be due to the small
tuber sizes and low weight of tubers of the different genotypes. Genotype 13.1.1,
however, had a positive albeit low ROCE (%). This might be due to the presence of a
few large tubers which contributed to the increased weight of the genotype.
Table 10a. Cost and return analysis of the ten potato genotypes per 5 m2 for seed tuber
production
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
GENOTYPE
YIELD
ROCE
SALE
EXPENSES
INCOME
(No./5m2)
(%)
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
380251.17
93 372 98 274 280
384558.10
30 120 98 22 22
676070
72 288 98 190 194
Ganza
55 220 98 122 124
285411.22
52 208 98 110 112
573275
64 256 98 158 161
676089
62 248 98 150 153
5.19.2.2
112 448 98 350 357
575003
47 188 98 90 92
13.1.1
244 976 98 878 896
Note: Php 4.00 is the selling price per G1 tuber.
Total expenses include labor cost, cost of planting material, fertilizer and botanical
fungicide (Virtouso).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
23
Table 10c shows that the return on cash expense of seed tubers is much higher
than the return on cash expense for table potato. This result indicates that production of
the ten different potato genotypes for G1 seed tubers is more profitable.
Table 10b. Cost and return analysis of the ten potato genotypes per 5 m2 for table potato
production
TOTAL
ROCE (%)
GENOTYPE
GROSS SALE
NET INCOME
EXPENSES
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
380251.17 63
98
-35
-36
384558.10 9
98
-89
-91
676070 24
98
-74
-76
Ganza 19
98
-79
-81
285411.22 10
98
-88
-90
573275 31
98
-67
-68
676089 35
98
-53
-54
5.19.2.2 45
98
-53
-54
575003 19
98
-79
-81
13.1.1 103
98
5
5
Note: Php 4.00 is the selling price of table potato tubers per kilogram.
Total expenses include cost of labor, fertilizer, planting material and botanical fungicide
(Virtouso).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
24
Table 10c. Cost and return analysis of the ten potato genotypes per 5 m2 for both seed
and table potato production
ROCE (%)
GENOTYPE
SEED TUBER
TABLE POTATO
380251.17 280
-36
384558.10 22
-91
676070 194
-76
Ganza 124
-81
285411.22 112
-90
573275 161
-68
676089 153
-54
5.19.2.2 357
-54
575003 92
-81
13.1.1 896
5
Dry Matter Content
Table 11 shows the significant differences in the dry matter content of the
different genotypes. Highest dry matter content was obtained from genotypes 5.19.2.2
and 13.1.1. The differences of dry matter among the genotypes are due to varietal
characteristics (Hesen, 1985) since dry matter content of the tubers is related to the potato
variety.
Furthermore, genotypes 5.19.2.2 and 13.1.1 may be good for chips and French fry
processing since high dry matter content of potatoes results in lower oil content of the
fried product (Hesen, 1985).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
25
Table 11. Dry matter content of the ten different potato genotypes
DRY MATTER
GENOTYPE
(%)
380251.17 17c
384558.10 18b
676070 16d
Ganza 17c
285411.22 17c
573275 17c
676089 18b
5.19.2.2 19a
575003 18b
13.1.1 19a
CV (%)
2.34
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05).
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
26
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted in an organic farm at Sinipsip, Buguias, Benguet to
evaluate the growth and yield performance of different potato genotype in an organic
farm, to identify the best performing potato genotypes based on yield, to determine the
profitability of the different potato genotypes, and to determine which of the potato
genotypes will be selected by the organic farmer.
Temperature was low and the relative humidity was high in the organic farm
during the growth of the different potato genotypes. The soil pH, organic matter,
nitrogen and potassium increased after harvest while the phosphorous content of the soil
decreased.
No significant differences were observed among the genotypes but 380251.17 had
the highest percentage survival. Moreover, genotype 5.19.2.2 was the tallest at 35 and 83
days after planting. Genotypes 380251.17, 5.19.2.2, and 13.1.1 also were found to be
highly vigorous while the rest were either moderately vigorous or vigorous.
An increasing trend of canopy cover was observed from genotypes 13.1.1,
5.19.2.2 and 676089 which could be an indication of resistance to late blight.
Genotypes 380251.17, 676070, 5.19.2.2 were selected by the farmer due to their
resistance to late blight, medium to large tubers and high plant vigor. These genotypes
can also withstand the unfavorable environmental condition in the farm.
Genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE (%) in both seed and table potato.
Furthermore, genotypes 13.1.1 and 5.19.2.2 significantly had the highest dry matter
content. These genotypes might therefore be good for processing.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
27
Conclusion
Based on the results, genotype 13.1.1 which had the highest canopy cover and
highest resistance to late blight infection also had the highest total yield. Furthermore,
genotype 13.1.1 also had the highest ROCE (%) for both seed and table potato. Thus, it
appears that wide canopy cover and resistance to late blight infection may enhance better
yield.
Genotype 13.1.1 is therefore adopted and could be produced at Sinipsip, Buguias.
In addition, genotypes 380251.17, 676070 and 5.19.2.2 might also be produced since
these genotypes were selected by the farmer.
A low yield was observed in most of the genotypes which could be due to the
very low temperature and high relative humidity at Sinipsip. This occurrence may
explain the negative values of ROCE (%) for table potatoes.
Recommendation
Genotype 13.1.1 can be recommended for both seed and table production in
Sinipsip, Buguias, Benguet.
Furthermore, to verify the results gathered, the genotypes could be planted during
the months of February to May since conditions are more favorable for potato production
during these months.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
28
LITERATURE CITED
BAUTISTA, O. K. and R. C. MABESA. 1972. Vegetable production. University of the
Philippine, Los Banos (UPLB). P. 16.
CARDESA, Y., WONG YON CHEONG, K. and N. GOVINDEN. 2001. Tropical potato
clones with larger canopies do not effect the growth, yield and yield components
of intercropped sugar cane. Http://www.bioline.org.br/request?cs01035.
CAGAMPANG, I. C. and H. C. LANTICAN. 1977. Field production guidelines in the
Philippines: Multiple cropping. University of the Philippines, Los Banos (UPLB),
Laguna. P. 177.
CALDWELL, B. 1993. Production and marketing of organic potato New York.
Extension Education, South Central NY Fruit and Vegetable Program. P. 61.
CIP. 2000. Compiled data sheet (loose sheet). International Potato Center (CIP). 3 pages.
DONAHUE, R. L. 1971. Soils and introductory to soils and plant growth. 3rd ed.
Interstate Printers and publishers, Inc. Danville, Illinoines. Pp. 226-227.
HESEN, J.C. 1985. Potato processing. Institute for storage and processing of
agricultural product (IBVL). Wageningen, Netherlands. P. 8.
HENFLING, J. W. 1982. Field screening procedures to evaluate resistance to late blight.
technology evaluation. Series no. 1982-05. International Potato Center
(CIP).
Lima, Peru. P. 11.
HUNTSINGER, T. 1995. Sustainable potato production. University of New Castle upon
Tyre. 15: 4-5.
KOHNKE. H. 1968. Soil physics. Tata Mc Graw-hill Publishing Company LTD.
Bombay, New Delhi: Pp. 171-187.
LANG, S. S. 2005. Growing potato organically: if it is profitable. Cornell University
News Service. Http//www.CUnewsservice.edu.com.
MADDER, P. and A. FLIEBACH. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic
farming. Science V. 296, n. 5573. P. 321.
PANDOSEN, M. .D. 1980. Effect of different rates of N, K and organic fertilizer on the
yield of Irish potato. BSA Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
29
POINCELOT, R. P. 1986. Toward a more sustainable agriculture. AVI Publishing
Company, Inc. WestPoint, Connecticut. P. 75.
RASCO, E. T and V. R. AMANTE. 1994. Sweet potato variety evaluation. Southeast
Asia Program for Potato Research and Development (SAPRRAD). P. 20.
RHAODES, R. E. 1982. The incredible potato. National Geographic. P. 30.
SCHULTZ, W. J. 1982. Great taste in potatoes. Organic gardening. A Prentice
Hall/Macmillan Company. P. 5.
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
30
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Percent survival of the different potato genotypes at 30 days
after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 100
95
100
285 98
384558.10
48 78 93 219 73
676070 85
100
95
280
93
Ganza
90 83 78 251 84
285411.22
80 63 95 238 79
573275
75 58 73 206 67
676089
100 93 75 268 89
5.19.2.2
83 88 98 269 90
575003
85 100 100 285 95
13.1.1
75 83 98 256 85
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
385.067
192.533
Treatment 9
2,488.033
276.448
2.05ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
2,488.267
134.904
TOTAL 29
5,301.367
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.57 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
31
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Plant vigor of the different potato genotypes at 30 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 5 3 5 13 4
384558.10 5 3 3 11 4
676070
3 3 3 9 3
Ganza
5 5 5 15 5
285411.22 5 5 3 13 4
573275
3 3 5 11 4
676089
5 3 3 11 4
5.19.2.2
5 5 5 15 5
575003
3 3 5 11 3
13.1.1
3 5 3 11 3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.800
0.400
Treatment 9
11.333
1.259
1.27ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
17.867
0.993
TOTAL 29
30.000
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 24.91 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
32
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Plant vigor of the different potato genotypes at 45 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 5 5 5 15 5a
384558.10 3 3 3 9 3c
676070
3 3 3 9 3c
Ganza
3 3 3 9 3c
285411.22 3 3 3 9 3c
573275
5 3 3 11 4b
676089
5 5 3 13 4b
5.19.2.2
5 5 5 15 5a
575003
3 3 3 9 3c
13.1.1
5 5 5 15 5a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.800
0.400
Treatment 9
23.467
2.607
10.35** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
4.533
0.252
TOTAL 29
28.800
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.21 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
33
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Plant height of the different potato genotypes at 35 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
7.8 8.0 8.5 24.3 8.1e e
384558.10
4.9 4.5 4.1 13.5 4.5f e
676070
8.4 8.4 8.0 24.8 8.3de
Ganza
9.1 8.9 8.0 26.0 8.7cd
285411.22
11.7 11.0 10.0 32.7 10.9b e
573275
9.0 9.3 9.2 27.3 9.1c e
676089
10.7 10.5 10.0 31.2 10.4b e
5.19.2.2
11.7 11.2 11.1 34.0 11.3a e
575003
9.2 9.0 8.9 27.1 9.0c e
13.1.1
11.8 11.5 10.9 34.2 11.4a e
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1.730
0.865
Treatment 9
114.614
12.735
109.44** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
2.094
0.116
TOTAL 29
118.438
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 3.72 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
34
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Plant height of the different potato genotypes at 83 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
23.2 23.3 23.5 70.0 23.3ab
384558.10
16.0 13.8 12.7 42.6 14.2bc
676070
23.2 20.0 17.2 60.4 20.1ab
Ganza 15.3
22.3
9.0
46.6
15.5bc
285411.22 0
20.00
0
20.00
6.7cc
573275
26.6 16.0 16.0 58.6 19.5bc
676089
28.7 24.8 16.3 69.8 23.3ab
5.19.2.2
29.3 31.1 35.3 95.7 31.9ac
575003
24.5 24.3 15.8 64.6 21.5ab
13.1.1
11.4 34.1 27.1 72.6 24.2ab
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
161.406
80.703
Treatment 9
1,244.936
138.326
3.50* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
711.081
39.504
TOTAL 29
2,117.423
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 31.38 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
35
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 30 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 20 7
14 41
14acc
384558.10 6 4 4 14 5ccc
676070
16 6 7 29 10abc
Ganza 13
9
12
34
11abc
285411.22 10 9 5 24 8bcc
573275
15 5 8 28 9abc
676089
15 6 6 27 9abc
5.19.2.2 12
8
10
30
10abc
575003
7 7 5 19 6bcc
13.1.1 12
11
6
29
10abc
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
178.067
89.033
Treatment 9
167.500
18.611
2.57* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
130.600
7.256
TOTAL 29
476.167
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 29.38 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
36
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 45 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 23 13 16 54 18
384558.10 7 8 6 21 7
676070 17
10
9
36
12
Ganza
14 10 10 34 11
285411.22 7
10
6 23 8
573275
15 5 9 29 10
676089 20
12
8
40
13
5.19.2.2
12 12 13 37 12
575003
9 9 6 24 8
13.1.1 24
15
8
47
16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
207.200
103.600
Treatment 9
2,306.000
256.222
1.47ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
3,140.800
174.489
TOTAL 29
5,654.000
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 31.57 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
37
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 60 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 21 14 23 58 19bdd
384558.10 3 9 7 19 6ddd
676070
17 14 13 44 15bcd
Ganza 12
14
9
35
12bcd
285411.22 4 5 6 15 5ddd
573275
16 6 9 31 10cdd
676089 22
15
9
46
15bcd
5.19.2.2
17 16 21 54 18bdd
575003 11
13
7
31
10cdd
13.1.1
34 23 23 80 27add
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
56.267
28.133
Treatment 9
1,136.033
126.226
8.08** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
281.067
15.615
TOTAL 29
1,473.367
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 28.70 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
38
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Canopy cover of the different potato genotypes at 75 days after
planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 23 9
21 53
18bcd
384558.10 5 4 4 13 4edv
676070
19 12 13 44 15bcd
Ganza 4
16
4
24
8dcd
285411.22 4 3 0 7 2edd
573275
8 2 5 10 5edd
676089 28
16
8
52
17bcd
5.19.2.2
20 15 25 60 20bdd
575003 12
13
6
31
10cde
13.1.1
38 38 31 101 36adv
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
104.867
52.433
Treatment 9
2,664.800
296.089
11.20** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
475.800
26.433
TOTAL 29
3,245.467
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 21.37 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
39
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Late blight incidence of the different potato genotypes at 45
days after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 1 2 2 5 2d
384558.10 2 5 3 10 3cd
676070
3 3 3 9 3cd
Ganza
5 4 5 14 5ab
285411.22 7 5 6 18 6a
573275
3 4 4 11 4bc
676089
3 4 3 10 3cd
5.19.2.2
3 4 3 10 3cd
575003
2 3 3 8 3cd
13.1.1
3 1 3 7 2d
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.600
0.300
Treatment 9
34.867
4.430
6.26** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
12.733
0.707
TOTAL 29
53.200
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 24.74 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
40
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Late blight incidence of the different potato genotypes at 60
days after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 3 3 3 9 3cc
384558.10 7 3 3 13 4bc
676070
3 4 3 10 3cc
Ganza
6 5 5 16 5bc
285411.22 8 6 6 20 7ac
573275
4 3 3 10 3cc
676089
3 3 3 9 3cc
5.19.2.2
3 3 3 9 3cc
575003
5 3 3 11 4bc
13.1.1
3 3 2 8 3cc
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
7.400
3.700
Treatment 9
38.800
4.311
4.17** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
18.600
1.033
TOTAL 29
64.800
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 26.75 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
41
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Late blight incidence of the different potato genotypes at 75
days after planting
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 3 4 5 12 4bcd
384558.10 6 7 2 15 5bcc
676070
3 4 4 11 4bcd
Ganza
6 5 7 18 6bcc
285411.22 7 8 9 24 8acc
573275
3 6 6 15 5bcc
676089
2 3 4 9 3cdc
5.19.2.2
4 5 4 13 4bcd
575003
3 4 4 11 4bcd
13.1.1
2 3 2 7 2dcc
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
5.600
2.800
Treatment 9
70.833
7.870
6.65** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
25.067
1.393
TOTAL 29
101.500
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 26.22 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
42
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Weight of marketable tubers of the different potato genotypes
per 5m2 (g)
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
2,000 1,043 1,697 4,740 1,580be
384558.10
267 178 240 685 228ee
676070
632 522 667 1,821 607de
Ganza
667 364 400 1,431 477de
285411.22
325 182 240 747 249ee
573275
1,500 343 500 2,343 781cd
676089
1,520 720 400 2,640 880cd
5.19.2.2 1,667
667
1,037
3,371
1,124bc
575003
490 433 473 1,396 465de
13.1.1
2,609 2,727 2,375 7,711 2,570ae
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
DEGREES
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1,142,080.267 571,040.133
Treatment 9
13,436,513.500 1,548,501.500
19.25** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
1,447,676.400 80,426.467
TOTAL 29
1+,526,270.167
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 15.79 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
43
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Weight of marketable tubers of the different potato genotypes
per 5m2 (g)
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17 114 87 30 231 77abb
384558.10 0
4
40
44
15eb
676070
84 26 27 137 46bcb
Ganza
17 18 50 85 28bcb
285411.22
50 36 80 166 55abc
573275 67
6
67
140
48bcb
676089
56 64 53 173 58abc
5.19.2.2
22 33 44 99 33bcb
575003 40
100
73
213
71abb
13.1.1 87
91
130
308
103abb
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
835.800
417.900
Treatment 9
17,896.133
1,988.459
2.66* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
13,454.867
747.493
TOTAL 29
32,186.800
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 30.14 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
44
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Total yield of the different potato genotypes per 5m2 (g)
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
2,114.4 1,130.4 1,727.2 4,972.0 1,657b
384558.10
266.8 182.4 280.0 729.2 243f
676070 716.0
548.0
6932.2
1,957.2
653cdef
Ganza
683.2 382.0 450.0 1,515.2 505def
285411.22
374 218.4 320.0 912.0 304ef
573275
1,520.3 400.0 566.8 2,487.1 829cde
676089
1,576.0 784.0 453.2 2,813.2 938cd
5.19.2.2 1,688.8
700.0
1,0813.6
3,470.4
1,157c
575003
530.0 533.2 544.8 1,608.0 536def
13.1.1
2,695.6 2,818.0 2,505.2 8,018.8 2,673a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
720.319
360.160
Treatment 9
9,104.912
1,011.657
20.14** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
904.201
50.233
TOTAL 29
10,729.433
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 29.68 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
45
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Dry matter content (%) of the different potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
380251.17
17 17 17 51 17c
384558.10
18 18 18 54 18b
676070
16 16 16 48 16d
Ganza
17 17 17 51 17c
285411.22
17 17 18 52 17c
573275
17 17 16 50 17c
676089
17 18 18 53 18b
5.19.2.2
19 19 20 58 19a
575003
18 18 18 54 18b
13.1.1
19 20 19 58 19a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.267
0.133
Treatment 9 31.633
3.575
20.63** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
3.067
0.170
TOTAL 29
34.967
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 2.37 %
Growth and Yield of Promising Potato Genotypes Grown
in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias / Gayomba C. Hector. 2006
Document Outline
- Growth and Yield of Promising Potato
Genotypes Grown in an Organic Farm at Sinipsip, Buguias
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES