BIBLIOGRAPHY DARIO, WESLEY O. APRIL 2007....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DARIO, WESLEY O. APRIL 2007. Agronomic Characters of Bush Snap bean
Varieties Under Organic Production at La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Belinda A Tad-awan, PhD.
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to determine; the agronomic characters of different bush snap
bean varieties grown organically, the best performing variety of bush snap bean in terms
of growth, yield and resistance of pest and diseases under organic production and the
economic benefit of planting different bush snap bean varieties under organic production.
The nine snap bean varieties significantly varied in their maturity, height at 30
and 77 DAP, number of branches, number of seeds per pod, weight of 200 seeds, number
and weight of marketable seeds and total yield.
Contender and “Lipstican” were earliest to produce pods. HAB 323 produced the
most seeds per pod. “Lipstican” significantly produced the highest seed yield. HAB 19
had the highest return on cash expense. HAB 323, HAB 19, Contender and “Lipstican”,
Green Crop are the best yielders and most profitable to grow under organic production at
Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………..
i
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….
i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………
ii
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………………..
3
METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………... 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………...
12
Meteorological Data…………………………………………………...
12
Soil Chemical Properties………………………………………………
13
Days from Sowing to Emergence ……………………………………
13
Days from Emergence to Flowering…………………………………..
14
Days from Emergence to First and
Last Harvesting……………………………………………...……..
14
Days from Emergence to Pod Setting…………………………………
14
Days from Flowering to Pod setting…………………………………
15
Height at 30 and 77 DAP……………………………………………..
16
Number of Branches Per Plant………………………………………..
17
Number of Flower Clusters Per Plant…………………….…………...
17
Number of Flowers Per Cluster ………………………………………
18
Number of Pod Clusters Per Plant……………………………………
18
Number of Pods Per Cluster………………………………………….
19
ii
Percentage Pod set………………………………………………….…
19
Number of Seeds Per Pod………………………………………….…
20
Seed Length ……………………………………………………….…
20
Seed Width……………………………………………….…………..
20
Number and Weight of Marketable Seeds ………………….…….….
21
Number and Weight of Non-Marketable Seeds………….…………...
22
Weight of 200 Seeds………………………………………………….
23
Total Seed Yield………………………………………………...……
23
Computed Seed Yield…………………………………………………
23
Pest and Disease Occurrence………………………………………….
25
Harvest Index………………………………………………………….
26
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)…………………………………….
27
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ……….……
29
Summary……………………………………………………………..
29
Conclusions………………………………………………….……….
30
Recommendation…………………………………………………….
30
LITERATURE CITED ………………………………………………………
31
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………….
32
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), a vegetable legume, commonly source of plant
protein for human diet as well as feed supplement for animals. It is also rich in vitamins
and soluble carbohydrates. Snap bean thrives well in cool medium to high altitude in
tropical countries (World Book Encyclopedia, 1991).
According to surveys, Benguet farmers commonly practice monocropping of snap
bean under conventional farming with the intensive use of chemical and synthetic
fertilizers. Such practices meant to increase production contributed to several problems
like soil degradation, water contamination, air pollution, resistance to insects and diseases
and further reduction in yield. Due to these problems alternative farming is important to
consider. One of these is the production without the use of synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides and practice of crop diversity. These practices are all embraced in organic
farming.
In organic farming, the use of resistant varieties against diseases and insects that
would minimize the use of synthetic fungicides and insecticides. It is, therefore,
important to introduce resistant and high yielding snap bean varieties adapted to organic
production.
According to Colting (1994), application of organic fertilizers affects favorable
changes in soil properties. In general, the pH and organic matter content of the soil
increased after harvesting of the plants. This indicates that organic farming allows the
production of crops while enhancing soil productivity.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
2
The result of the study will provide information to farmers in selecting snap bean
varieties, which are high yielding, insect and disease resistant and adapted to organic
production.
The objectives of the study were to:
1. determine the agronomic characters of different bush snap bean varieties grown
organically;
2. determine the best performing variety of bush snap bean in terms of growth, seed
yield and resistance to pest and disease under organic production; and
3. determine the economic benefit of planting different bush snap bean varieties
under organic production.
The study was conducted at the BSU Experimental Station Balili, La Trinidad,
Benguet form October 2006 to January 2007.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Organic Farming Defined
According to Sullivan (2003), organic farming system avoid using synthetic
fertilizers, pesticides and growth regulators, and relies on crop rotations, crop residues,
animal manures, legumes, green manuring, off-farm waste, mechanical cultivation,
mineral bearing rocks and biological pest control to maintain the health of the soil, plant
nutrient supply and minimize insect, weeds and disease.
Components of Organic Farming
Use of organic fertilizers. Since commercial are petroleum – based, the make the
soil acidic and hard. As a result, beneficial microbes cannot thrive and the natural
fertility of the soil is lost. On the other hand, organic fertilizers improve drainage and
aeration of heavy soils. It promotes plant resistance to virus and pest (Landacan, 1993).
Organic fertilizers supply some amount of the nutrient requirements of the crop
they promote favorable soil properties, such as granulation and good tilt for efficient
aeration, easy root penetration and improve water holding capacity (PCCARD, 1982).
Koshino (1990) stated that nutrient elements form organic fertilizer are slowly
released and particularly important in avoiding salt injury, ensuring a continuous supply
of nutrients during the growing season and in producing product of better quality.
Compost as an organic fertilizer. Application of compost improves the
physiological chemical and biological condition of the soil besides providing plant
nutrients. The humus in compost serves as the colloidal material with negative electric
chare and coagulated with cation and soil particles to form granules. Soil with more
granules is less sticky, high buffering capacity, and has better permeability and greater
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
4
water holding capacity. It is capable of regulating plant growth and disease occurrence
(Sangatnan and Sangatnan, 2000). In addition, Pataras (1984) stated that through the
application of compost fertilizers is best way to prepare of soil for vegetables production
that can improve the soil structure making it ideal for crop production.
Mechalak (1994) cited that compost is a good source of organic matter and
nutrient for plants. It improves soil structure and water retention. Compost contains
beneficial microorganisms that suppress plant pathogen in soil.
Compost application replenishes soil organic matter or humus being depleted with
continuous cropping. Application of compost also activates soil microorganisms,
consequently increasing the availability of nutrients that plant feed on (Marquez, 1988).
Follet (1981) added that organic residues on the soil protect the land against
raindrop, splash erosion and reduce the extreme of surface temperature. When organic
residues are decomposed, they supply some essential nutrient needed by plants, and
makes macronutrients ready available to plant over wide range.
Crop protection in organic farming. According to Pawar (2005) controlling pest
is done with no use of chemical methods. An organic farmer strategy is to prevent
through good plant nutrition and management to control pest and diseases. An organic
farmer relies on diverse population of soil organisms beneficial insects and birds to keep
the pest in check. The use of predators, mating disruption, traps and growers will
implement barriers when pest population gets out of balance. Sanitation and cultural
practices and required first to growers before can resort to applying an organic pesticide
to control problems on weeds insects and diseases.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
5
Diversity in organic farming. As cited by Pawar (2005), crop diversification
includes farming system as multistory cropping, mixed cropping, crop rotation and
intercropping etc. that includes ecological benefits, which maintain production efficiency.
As a result this practice it increases yield, reduces pest incidence, improved weed control,
and reduces soil erosion, the cycling of nutrient reserves form depth of soil and transfer
from nitrogen fixing species.
Importance of Varietal Evaluation in Organic Farming
Organic farming expects that the proposed standard variety is locally adapted,
with resistance to pest and diseases so that high product will be obtained. However, the
new revisions limit the use of non-organically produced seeds. Therefore, certified
organic seed, bulbs, tubers, annual cuttings, are required to use by farmers and varieties
they use should be well adapted to specific soil and fertility conditions. In several
circumstances varieties that do not perform well in organic system have difference yield
performance. Therefore, in selection of varieties farmers should consider the consumer
requirement, supermarket requirement, variety maturity in order to achieve the best
production needed (Singh 1999).
In 2006, Montes evaluated the growth and yield of potato in an organic farm at
Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. The result revealed that genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2.
Kennebec and Ganza were highly vigorous plants at 35 DAP. Genotype 676089 produced
the tallest plant had the highest weight of tubers and highest dry matter content of tubers.
Genotypes IP84007.67, 676070 and 13.1.1 were resistant to late blight.
.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An area of 270 sq. m. which previously planted with potato for organic
production was properly cleaned and prepared. The area was divided into three blocks
consisting of ten plots each measuring 1m x 10 m. The experiment was laid out using
randomized complete block design (RCBD).
The varieties used as treatment were:
VARIETY/ENTRY
SOURCE
V1 = Landmark
BSU
V2 = HAB 323
IPB-HRS
V3
=
BBL
BSU
V4
=
Torrent
IPB-HRS
V5 = HAB 63
BSU
V6 = Contender
IPB-HRS
V7 = Green Crop
IPB-HRS
V8 = HAB 19
BSU
V9 = Lipstican
Kalinga
Planting and Planting Distance
Seeds were sown at a distance of 25 cm x 25 cm between hills and rows at 2-3
seeds per hill.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
7
Cultural Management Practices
Compost at the rate of 10 kg. per 10m2 was applied two weeks before planting.
Cultural management practices like weeding, irrigation were uniformly employed.
Yellow traps were placed for leaf miner control. There was no use of synthetic fertilizers
and pesticides. Marigold and corn were planted around the area to encourage crop
diversity and lessen pest infestation.
Data Gathered:
1. Maturity
a. Days from sowing to emergence. This was obtained by counting the days form
sowing to emergence.
b. Days from emergence to flower. This was recorded by counting the days form
emergence until the plants produce flower.
c. Days from flowering to pod setting. This was obtained by counting the days from
flowering until flowers become pods.
d. Days from emergence to pod setting. This was obtained by counting the days
from emergence until they become pods.
e. Day form emergence to first harvesting. This was recorded by counting the days
from emergence to first harvesting.
f. Day form emergence to last harvesting. This was recorded by counting the days
from emergence to last harvesting.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
8
2. Vegetative Characters
a. Plant height at 30 and 77 DAP. The height was measured from the base of the
plant to the youngest shoot at 30 DAP and at harvest using foot rule from ten sample
plants per entry.
b. Number of branches per plant. This was obtained by counting the branches per
plant per entry.
3. Reproductive Characters
a. Number of flower clusters per plant. This was recorded by counting the flower
clusters form ten sample plants per entry.
b. Number of flowers per cluster. This was recorded by counting the number of
flowers per cluster from ten sample plants per entry.
c. Number of pods per cluster. The number of pods per cluster was obtained by
counting the pods produced.
d. Number of pods per cluster. This was obtained by getting the number of pods per
cluster.
e. Percentage pod set per cluster (%). This was obtained using following formula
Total number of pods / cluster
%
pod
setting
=
x
100
Total number of flower/cluster
f. Number of seeds per pod. The number of seeds per pod was counted from ten
sample pods per entry.
g. Seed length (mm). The seed was measured using a foot rule.
h. Seed width (mm). The mid-portion of the seed was measured by using a foot
rule.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
9
4. Yield and Yield Components
a. Number and weight of marketable seeds per plot (kg). This was obtained by
counting and weighing the marketable seeds per plot per entry.
b. Number and weight of non-marketable seeds per plot (kg). This was obtained by
counting and weighing non-marketable seeds that were damaged, small sized and infested
with pod borer.
c. Weight of 200 seed (g). This was obtained by weighing 200 seeds per plot per
entry.
d. Total seed yield per plot (kg). This was obtained by getting the total number and
weight of marketable and non-marketable seeds per plot.
e. Computed seed yield per hectare (kg). This was computed yield per hectare based
on the yield per plot using the formula.
Total yield/plot
Yield (tons/ha) =
x 10,000
Plot size (m2)
5. Pest and Disease Incidence
a. Pod Borer (Jose, 2004)
Scale
Percent
Infestation
Description
1
No infection
High resistance
2
1-25% of the total plant/plot
Mild resistance
was
infected.
3 25-50%
of
the
total
Moderate
Resistance
plant/plot
was
infected
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
10
4 51-75%
of
the
total
Susceptible
plant/plot was infected
5 76-100%
of
the
total
Very
susceptible
plant/plot
was
infected
b. Bean Rust (Jose, 2004)
Scale
Percent
Infestation
Description
1
No infection
High resistance
2
1-25% of the total plant/plot
Mild resistance
was
infected.
3 25-50%
of
the
total
Moderate
Resistance
plant/plot
was
infected
4 51-75%
of
the
total
Susceptible
plant/plot
was
infected
5 76-100%
of
the
total
Very
susceptible
plant/plot
was
infected
6. Harvest Index. This was taken by the following formula.
S1DW
HI =
RDW+S1DW+LDW+PSDW+S2DW
Where:
S1DW = Seeds dry weight
RDW = Root dry weight
LDW = Leaves dry weight
PSWD = Pod shell dry weight
S2WD = Stem dry weight
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
11
7. Return on Cash Expense (ROCE). This was obtained using the following formula:
Net Income
ROCE
= x
100
Total Cost of Production
Data Analysis
All quantitative data were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
differences among the treatment means was tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Meteorological Data During the Conduct of the Study
Table 1 shows the temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine
duration during the conduct of the study. Temperature ranged from 12.6 oC to 24.5 oC.
The relative humidity was 78%. The rainfall was low with an average of 1.26 mm.
Sunshine duration ranged from 381.9 to 521.6 kj. Temperature was favorable for snap
bean production. Snap beans grow best in areas with temperature between 15 to 21 oC.
Bush varieties can tolerate low temperature better than the climbing varieties
(HARRDEC, 2000).
Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine duration during
the conduct of the study
MONTHS TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE RAINFALL SUNSHINE
HUMIDITY
AMOUNT DURATION
MAX MIN
(%)
(mm)
(kj)
November
23.5 15.2 80 2.5 381.4
December
24.5 15.6 70 2.5 387.0
January 23.9 13.9 77 0.03
386.6
February 23.6 12.6 77 0 521.6
MEAN 23.8
16.33 78 1.26
419.15
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
13
Soil Chemical Properties
Table 2 shows the pH, OM, N, P, and K before planting. The soil pH was 6.72,
soil content such as organic matter (2.5 %), phosphorous (90 ppm), potassium (312 ppm)
and for nitrogen (0.125 %) maybe favorable for snap bean production. Snap bean can
tolerate soil pH 5.5 to 6.5 but perform best between a pH range of 5.8 to 6.0 (HARRDEC,
2000).
Table 2. Soil chemical properties of the experimental area before planting
Before planting
Soil chemical properties/content
PH
6.72
OM(%)
2.5
N (%)
0.125
P (ppm)
90
K (ppm)
312
Days from Sowing to Emergence
Statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences on the number of days
from sowing to emergence among the nine varieties evaluated (Table 3). Landmark,
HAB 323, Torrent, HAB 63, Green Crop and HAB 19 were the earliest to emerge within
seven days. BBL, Contender and “Lipstican” were the latest to emerge.
The ability of the varieties to germinate could be attributed to their varietal
characteristics.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
14
Days from Emergence to Flowering
Contender and “:Lipstican” showed highly significant differences from
emergence to flowering as compared to Torrent, Landmark and BBL which were the
latest to produce flower (34 days). Other varieties produced flowers within 33 days from
emergence. The flowering differences could be attributed to their genetic make-up.
Days from Emergence to First and Last Harvesting
Highly significant differences were noted on the number of days from emergence
to first harvesting (Table 3). Contender was the earliest to be harvested at 73 days while
BBL was the latest to be harvested at 83 days from emergence. Contender was the first to
be harvested in 76 days. BBL was the latest to be harvested at 89 days from emergence.
Days from Emergence to Pod Setting
Table 4 shows the number of days from emergence to pod setting. Highly
significant differences were observed on the number of days from emergence to pod
setting. Contender and “Lipstican” were the earliest to produce pods at 35 days from
emergence. The latest to produce pods was the BBL (38 days). Other varieties produced
pods at 37 days from emergence.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
15
Table 3. Number of days from sowing to emergence, from emergence to flowering, and
to first harvesting and last harvesting of nine bush snap bean varieties
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM
VARIETY
SOWING
EMERGENCE
EMERGENCE
EMERGENCE
TO
TO
TO FIRST
TO LAST
EMERGENCE
FLOWERING
HARVESTING HARVESTING
Landmark 7a
34c
77b
84b
HAB 323
7a
33b
77b
84b
BBL 8b
34c
83c
89c
Torrent 7a
34c
77b
84b
HAB 63
7a
33b
74ab
77ab
Contender 8b
31a
73a
76a
Green Crop
7a
33b
77b
84b
HAB 19
7a
33b
74ab
77ab
Lipstican 8b
31a
77b
84b
CV( %)
0
0.93
0
1.17
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Days From Flowering to Pod Setting
Table 4 shows highly significant differences on the number of days from
flowering to pod setting. Landmark and Torrent were the earliest to produce pods. On
the other hand, HAB 323, HAB 63, HAB 19, “Lipstican” Green Crop and Contender
produce pods later at 4 days from flowering
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
16
Table 4. Number of days from emergence to pod setting, and flowering to pod setting of
nine bush snap bean varieties
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM:
VARIETY
EMERGENCE TO
FLOWERING TO
POD SETTING
POD SETTING
Landmark 37b
3a
HAB 323
37b
4b
BBL 38c
4b
Torrent 37b
3a
HAB 63
37b
4b
Contender 35a
4b
Green Crop
37b
4b
HAB 19
37b
4b
Lipstican 35a
4b
CV ( %)
0.83
0
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Height at 30 and at 77 DAP
Table 5 shows the height at the plants at 30 and 77 DAP. HAB 323 significantly
produced the tallest plants but comparable with “Lipstican”, HAB 19, HAB 63 and
Torrent. Variety Landmark produce the shortest plants. At 77 DAP, all varieties had
increased in height. Green Crop and Torrent significantly produced the tallest plants. The
shortest plants were obtained from HAB 323 but was comparable with Landmark, HAB
63, Contender, HAB 19 and “Lipstican.”
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
17
Number of Branches Per Plant
The most branches per plant were obtained from HAB 323, Contender, Green
Crop and HAB 19 with three branches which is comparable with those obtained from
BBL, Land mark, HAB 63. “Lipstican” and Torrent produced two and one branch per
plant, respectively (Table 5).
Numbers of Flower Clusters per Plant
No significant differences among the nine varieties were noted on the number of
flower clusters per plant (Table 6). Flower cluster per plant ranged from 3-4.
Table 5. Height at 30 and 77 DAP and number of branches per plant of nine bush snap
bean varieties
HEIGHT
VARIETY
30 DAP
77 DAP
NUMBER OF BRANCHES
(cm)
(cm)
PER PLANT
Landmark 9.25d
20.88cb
2ab
HAB 323
12.99a
20.37c
3a
BBL 11.08c
23.50b
2ab
Torrent 12.57ab
27.29a
1b
HAB 63
12.72ab
22.07cb
2ab
Contender 11.53bc
21.65cb
3a
Green Crop
11.97abc
27.64a
3a
HAB 19
12.79ab
21.14cb
3a
Lipstican 12.72ab
21.47cb
2ab
CV (%)
5.54
6.96
24.22
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
18
Number of Flowers Per Cluster
No significant differences were noted on the number of flowers per cluster. The
varieties evaluated produced 3 to 4 flowers per cluster (Table 6).
Number of Pod Clusters Per Plant
No significant differences were observed on the number of pod clusters per plant
(Table 7). Pod cluster ranged from 3-4 per plant.
Table 6. Number of flower clusters and flowers per clusters per plant of nine bush snap
bean varieties
VARIETY NUMBER
FLOWER CLUSTER
FLOWER PER CLUSTER
Landmark 4
3
HAB 323
3
4
BBL 4
3
Torrent 4
3
HAB 63
3
3
Contender 3
3
Green Crop
3
3
HAB 19
3
3
Lipstican 4
3
CV %
13.40
12.08
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
19
Number of Pods Per Cluster
No significant difference was noted on the number of pods per cluster among the
nine varieties evaluated (Table 7). Pods per cluster ranged from 2-3 per plant.
Percentage Pod Set
HAB 63 had the highest pod set of 89.6%. Green Crop had the lowest percentage
pod set of 70.31% (Table 7). However, the differences among varieties were not
significant.
Table 7. Number of pod cluster, pods per cluster per plant and percentage pod set of nine
bush snap bean varieties
NUMBER
VARIETY
PERCENTAGE
POD
PODS PER
POD SET
CLUSTER/PLANT
CLUSTER
Landmark 3 3
83.51ab
HAB 323
4
3
86.70ab
BBL 3
2
77.80ab
Torrent 3
3
86.22ab
HAB 63
3
3
89.61a
Contender 3 3
77.57ab
Green Crop
3
2
70.31b
HAB 19
3
3
81.60ab
Lipstican 3
2
78.94ab
CV %
14.76
18.22
10.72
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
20
Number of Seeds Per Pod
HAB 323 and HAB 19 significantly produced the most seeds per pod.
“Lipstican” had the least seeds per pod (Table 8). The significant differences could be
attributed to their varietal characteristics. More seeds were noted from the small seeded
varieties (HAB 323 and HAB 19) as compared with the larger seeds obtained from
“Lipstican.”
Seed Length
Highly significant differences were observed on seed length (Table 8). Contender
and “Lipstican” had significantly obtained the longest seeds. The shortest seeds were
obtained from HAB 63 but comparable with Landmark, HAB 323 and HAB 19.
Seed Width
“Lipstican” had significantly obtained the widest seeds followed by Green Crop
but was comparable with Contender. The narrowest seeds were obtained from HAB 63
(Table 8).
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
21
Table 8. Number of seeds per pod, seed length and seed width of nine bush snap bean
varieties
.
SEED
VARIETY
NUMBER OF SEEDS
PER POD
LENGTH WIDTH
(mm) (mm)
Landmark 5b
12.57cd
5.30c
HAB 323
6a
12.43cd
4.97c
BBL 5b
14.33b
5.30c
Torrent 5b
13.23c
5.63c
HAB 63
5b
12.10d
5.07c
Contender 5b
17.00a
6.53b
Green Crop
5b
15.07b
6.67b
HAB 19
6a
12.47cd
5.43c
Lipstican 4c
16.93a
7.20a
CV %
7.65
3.68
6.24
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Number and Weight of Marketable Seeds
Highly significant differences among the varieties were noted for numbers of
marketable seeds (Table 9). HAB 323, HAB 19, and HAB 63 produced the most seeds
per 10 m2. The lowest number of marketable seeds was obtained from “Lipstican”. For
seed weight, significant differences were observed among the varieties tested.
“Lipstican” significantly produced the heaviest marketable seeds but comparable with
HAB 19. The lowest weight of marketable seeds was obtained from Torrent.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
22
Number and Weight of Non-Marketable Seeds
Landmark, HAB 323, HAB63 had significantly produced the most non-
marketable seeds but comparable with BBL, Torrent and Contender, “Lipstican”
produced the lowest number of non-marketable, which maybe due to moderate resistance
to pod borer. As to the weight of non- marketable seeds, Landmark, HAB 323 and HAB
63 produced the highest weight. “Lipstican” produced the lowest weight of non-
marketable seeds.
Table 9. Number and weight of marketable and non-marketable seeds of nine bush
snap bean varieties
MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE
VARIETY
NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT
(kg/10m2)
(kg/10m2)
Landmark 1825b
0.50d
443c
0.090c
HAB 323
3187a
0.73b
438c
0.070abc
BBL 1802b
0.55dc
290ab
0.057b
Torrent 1549b
0.50d
346ab
0.050a
HAB 63
2869a
0.71b
441c
0.067abc
Contender 1564b
0.69c
347ab
0.087ab
Green Crop
1628b
0.73b
217b
0.057b
HAB 19
2973a
0.83ab
268abc
0.047a
Lipstican 1535b
0.919a
122a
0.047a
CV
%
12.77 12.61 27.42 27.42
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
23
Weight of 200 Seeds
Highly significant results were obtained on the weight of 200 seeds per 10 m2
(Table 10). “Lipstican” had significantly produced the highest weight while HAB 63
produced the lowest weight of 200 seeds with a mean of 45g per 10 m2.
The heavy seeds of ‘Lipstican” could be attributed to long and wide seeds.
Total Seed Yield
The heaviest seed yield per plot was produced by ”Lipstican” (Table 10).
Comparable seed yield was harvested from HAB 19. However, slight difference in yield
of Green Crop, Contender, HAB 63, and HAB 323 was obtained. All the aforementioned
varieties significantly outyielded Landmark, BBL and Torrent.
The high seed yield of “Lipstican”, Contender, HAB 63 and HAB 323 could be
due to long and wide seeds produced. Fig. 1 shows the harvested seeds from the nine
varieties evaluated under organic production.
Computed Seed Yield
Table 10 presents the computed seed yield per hectare of different bush snap bean
varieties studied. “Lipstican” significantly outyielded all the varieties evaluated but has
comparable yield with HAB 19. The results show that “Lipstican” is the best yielder
under organic production at La Trinidad, Benguet.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
24
Lipstican
BBL
Landmark
HAB 19
Contender
Green Crop
Torrent
HAB 323
HAB 63
Fig. 1. Seeds from the nine bush snap bean varieties
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
25
Table 10. Weight of 200 seeds, total seed yield per plot and computed yield per hectare
of nine bush snap bean varieties
SEED YIELD
VARIETY
WEIGHT OF 200
SEEDS (g)
Kg/10m2 Kg/Ha
Landmark 50.00ef
0.60c
596.67c
HAB 323
46.67fg
0.80b
803.33b
BBL 56.67d
0.60c
603.33c
Torrent 60.00d
0.55c
550.00c
HAB 63
45.00gb 0.75b
753.33b
Contender 86.67b
0.78b
780.00b
Green Crop
81.67c
0.78b
783.33b
HAB 19
51.67e
0.88ab
880.67ab
Lipstican 113.67a
0.96a
960.00a
CV %
4.17
11.15
11.15
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Bean Rust and Pod Borer Occurrence
Visual rating for occurrence of bean rust and pod borer among the nine varieties
was done during the reproductive stage. It was observed that all the varieties evaluated
were susceptible to bean rust. For pod borer, “Lipstican” and Green Crop showed mild
resistance. BBL, Torrent and Contender were moderately resistant while Landmark, HAB
323 and HAB 63 were susceptible to pod borer infestation.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
26
Table 11. Pod borer occurrence of nine bush snap bean varieties
VARIETY
POD BORER RATING
Landmark
Susceptible
HAB
323
Susceptible
BBL
Moderate
Resistant
Torrent
Moderate
Resistant
HAB
63
Susceptible
Contender
Moderate
Resistant
Green
Crop
Mild
Resistance
HAB
19
Moderate
Resistant
Lipstican
Mild
Resistance
Harvest Index
Table 12 shows the harvest index of the nine varieties evaluated. Numerically,
HAB 323 had the highest harvest index followed by Contender and “Lipstican”. The
lowest harvest index was obtained from BBL. However, no significant difference among
varieties was noted.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
27
Table 12. Harvest index of nine bush snap bean varieties
VARIETY
HARVEST INDEX
Landmark 0.24
HAB 323
0.24
BBL 0.23
Torrent 0.26
HAB 63
0.29
Contender 0.24
Green Crop
0.27
HAB 19
0.25
Lipstican 0.27
CV% 14.81
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Return on Cash Expenses (ROCE)
Positive ROCE was obtained from the eight varieties tested. HAB 19 had the
highest ROCE with 74.93 % followed by HAB 323 (55.18 %), “Lipstican” (54.06 %) and
Green Crop (53.78 %). Landmark which produced low marketable yield had a negative
ROCE. BBL obtained the lowest ROCE with 0.64 %.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
28
Table 13. Cost and return analysis of nine bush snap bean varieties (270 m2)
VARIETY TOTAL
COSTOF SEED YIELD
GROSS
NET
PRODUCTION
(kg)
INCOME
INCOME ROCE %
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
Landmark 423.67
1.51 392.60
-31.07
-7.33
HAB 323
453.67
2.20
704.00
250.33
55.18
BBL 423.67 1.64 426.40
2.73
0.64
Torrent 453.67
1.50 480.00
26.33
5.80
HAB 63
423.67
2.12
551.20
127.53
30.10
Contender 453.67
2.08 665.60
211.93
46.71
Green Crop
453.67
2.18
697.60
243.97
53.78
HAB 19
453.67
2.48
793.60
339.93
74.93
Lipstican 418.67
2.74 685.00
266.33
54.06
- Total expenses include land preparation, seeds, compost, maintenance which
includes weeding, irrigation, and hilling – up.
- Selling price: HAB 323, Torrent, Contender, Green Crop and HAB
= Php 320.00/kg
Land mark, BBL, HAB 63 = 260.00/kg
Lipstican = Php 250.00/kg
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
29
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet to determine; the
agronomic characters of different bush snap bean varieties grown organically, the best
performing variety of bush snap bean in terms of growth, yield and resistance of pest and
diseases and the economic benefit of planting different bush snap bean varieties under
organic production.
The results revealed that Landmark, HAB 323, Torrent, HAB 63 Green Crop and
HAB 19 were the earliest to emerge and produce pods. “Lipstican” and Contender were
the earliest to produce flower and to be harvested. HAB 323 produced the tallest plants at
30 DAP. However, Green Crop was the tallest at 77 DAP. There no significant
differences among varieties on the number of flower clusters, flowers per cluster, pod
clusters, pods per cluster and percentage pod set.
Among the varieties, “Lipstican” had the heaviest weight of 200 seeds,
marketable seeds, total seed yield per 10 m2 and per hectare. Contender showed
comparable result with “Lipstican” producing high marketable seed yield. As for
resistance to pod borer, Green Crop and “Lipstican” were rated mild resistance.
Positive ROCE was obtained for the eight varieties. Only Landmark obtained a
negative ROI. The highest ROCE were obtained from HAB 19, HAB 323, “Lipstican”
and Green Crop.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
30
Conclusions
“Lipstican” and HAB 19 consistently showed good agronomic performance under
organic production. These varieties are early maturing, high yielding and resistant pod
borer under La Trinidad condition.
Recommendation
Based on the conditions of the study, “Lipstican” and HAB 19 could be
recommended for organic production under La Trinidad, Benguet.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
31
LITERATURE CITED
COLTING, R. D. 1994. Yield response of snap bean and cabbage o pure organic
fertilization. The Philippine Journal of Crop Science. 19(1):10
FOLLET, L. H. 1981. Fertilizer and amendment. McGraw Hill Publishing Inc. United
State of America. P. 4.
HARRDEC. 2000.Snapbean farmer production guide. Brochure. Pp. 2
KOSHINO, S. O. 1990.The use of organic and chemical fertilizers. BS.Thesis. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.P.1.
JOSE, M. C. 2004. Varietal characterization, evaluation and correlation study in bush
snap bean. . BS.Thesis Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 9-
10.
LANDACAN, J. 1993. Comparative Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Growth and Yield
of Statice. Highland Agricultural R. and D Highlights. Pp. 89-90.
MARQUEZ, M. 1988. Utilization of azolla as organic fertilizers for cabbage and white
potato. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.4-6.
MECHALAK, P. S. 1994. Successful Organic Gardening Vegetables. MOE Becket.
Kevin Weldom Production. Pp. 44-46.
MONTES, F. R. 2006. Growth and yield of potato genotypes in an organic form at
Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. BS.Thesis Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P.31.
PCCARD. 1982. The Philippine Recommends for fertility management. Technical
Bulletin Series no. 36. Los Baños, Laguna.
PATARAS, K. T. 1984. Response of snapbean to organic fertilizers. BS.Thesis.Benguet
State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P. 35.
PAWAR, V. M. and S. N. PURI. 2005. Organic Farming. In/agri/extension/html/chapter
9.
SANGATNAN, P. D. and R. L. SANGATNAN. 2000. Organic Farming. P.D. Sangatnan
Marketing, Lapaz, Iloilo City. P.145.
SINGH, H. 1999. Importance of variety evaluation in organic farming. Retrieved.
November 28, 2006 from www.onefish/archice/sifar./SESINDAC.AC.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
32
SULLIVAN, P. 2003 Organic Rice Production. Retrieved. November 25, 2006
http:/www.Attrq.Org//attar-pub/rice.htm.
WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA. 1991. The World Book Encyclopedia. Volume 2. P.
181.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
33
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence of nine snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
7 7 7 21
7b
HAB
323
7 7 7 21
7b
BBL 8 8 8 24
8a
Torrent 7 7 7 21
7b
HAB
63 7 7 7 21
7b
Contender
8 8 8 24
8a
Green
Crop
7 7 7 21
7b
HAB
19 7 7 7 21
7b
Lipstican
8 8 8 24
8a
TOTAL 66 66 66 198 66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.00
0.00
Treatment
8
6.00
0.75
99999.99**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.00
0.00
TOTAL 26
6.000
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
34
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Number of days from emergence to flowering of nine bush snap
bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
34 34 34 102 34c
HAB
323
32 33 33 98 33b
BBL
33 34 34 101 34c
Torrent 34 34 34 102 34c
HAB
63 33 33 33 99 33b
Contender
31 31 32 94 31a
Green
Crop
33 33 33 99 33b
HAB
19 33 33 33 99 33b
Lipstican
31 31 31 93 31a
TOTAL 294 296 297 887 296
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.52
0.26
Treatment
8
27.41
0.43
37.00**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
1.48
0.09
TOTAL 26
29.41
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0.93%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
35
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Number of days from flowering to pod setting of nine snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 3 3 9 3a
HAB
323
4 4 4 12
4b
BBL 4 4 4 12
4b
Torrent 3 3 3 9 3a
HAB
63 4 4 4 12
4b
Contender
4 4 4 12
4b
Green
Crop
4 4 4 12
4b
HAB
19 4 4 4 12
4b
Lipstican
4 4 4 12
4b
TOTAL 34 34 34 105 34
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 0.00
0.00
Treatment
8
4.67
0.58
99999.99**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 0.00
0.00
TOTAL 26 4.07
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0.%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
36
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Number of days from emergence to pod setting of nine snap
bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
37 37 37 111
37b
HAB
323
36 37 37 110
37b
BBL
37 38 38 113
38c
Torrent 37 37 37 111
37b
HAB
63 37 37 37 111
37b
Contender
37 35 36 106
35a
Green
Crop
35 37 37 111
37b
HAB
19 37 37 37 111
37b
Lipstican
37 35 35 105
35a
TOTAL 328 330 331 989 330
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 0.52
0.26
Treatment
8
18.30
2.29
24.70**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 1.48
0.09
TOTAL 26
20.30
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0.83%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
37
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Number of days from emergence to first harvesting of nine bush
snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II
III
Landmark 77
77
77
231 77c
HAB 323
77
77
77
231
77c
BBL 83 83 83 249 83d
Torrent 77
77 77 231 77c
HAB 63
74
74
74
222
74b
Contender 73
73
73
219 73a
Green Crop
77
77
77
231
77c
HAB 19
74
74
74
222
74b
Lipstican 77
77
77
231 77c
TOTAL 695
695 695 2,085 695
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 0.0
0.00
Treatment
8
6.00
0.75
99999.99**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 0.00
0.00
TOTAL 26 6.00
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
38
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Number of days from emergence to last harvesting of nine bush
snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
84 84 84 252 84c
HAB
323
84 84 84 2252
84c
BBL 89 89 89 267 89d
Torrent
84 84 84 252 84c
HAB
63
77 77 77 231 77b
Contender
76 76 76 228 76a
Green
Crop
84 84 84 252 84c
HAB
19
77 77 77 231 77b
Lipstican
84 84 84 252 84c
TOTAL
739 739 739 2,217 739
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2
1.85
0.93
Treatment
8
531.41
66.43
71.74**
2.59 3.89
Error
16
14.82
0.93
TOTAL
26
548.07
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 1.17%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
39
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Plant height at 30 DAP (cm) of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
9.34 8.93 9.48 27.75 9.25d
HAB
323 13.28 12.99 12.69 38.96 12.99a
BBL
10.82 11.27 11.14 33.23 11.08c
Torrent 12.93 11.84 12.93 37.70 12.57bc
HAB
63 12.97 12.59 12.59 38.15 12.72ab
Contender 11.88 12.45 10.27 34.60 11.53bc
Green
Crop
12.83 10.56 12.53 35.92 11.97abc
HAB
19 13.33 12.75 12.28 38.36 12.79ab
Lipstican 13.67 12.53 11.97 38.17 12.72ab
TOTAL 110.55 105.91 105.88 317
107
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 1.85
0.93
Treatment
8
531.41
66.43
71.74**
2.59 3.89
Error
16
14.81
0.93
TOTAL
26
548.07
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 1.17%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
40
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Plant height at 77 DAP (cm) of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 21.41 21.17 19.96 62.64 20.88bc
HAB
323 22.37 18.24 20.51 61.12 20.37c
BBL
24.17 25.14 21.20 70.51 23.50b
Torrent 25.39 26.73 29.74 81.86 27.29a
HAB
63 23.23 21.75 21.22 66.20 22.06bc
Contender 23.67 21.33 19.94 64.94 21.65bc
Green
Crop
28.99 25.82 28.12 82.93 27.64a
HAB
19 24.11 20.76 21.56 66.43 22.14bc
Lipstican 23.93 20.72 19.75 64.40 21.46bc
TOTAL 217.27
201.76 202 621.03
394.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 17.55
8.77
Treatment
8
172.11
21.51
8.40**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 40.98
2.56
TOTAL 26
230.639
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 6.96%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
41
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Number of branches per plant of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
2 2 2 6 2
HAB
323
4 3 2 9 3
BBL 2 2 2 6 2
Torrent 2 1 1 4 1
HAB
63 2 2 2 6 2
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 2 3 8 3
HAB
19 3 3 2 8 3
Lipstican
3 2 1 6 2
TOTAL 24 20 18 62 21
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 1.56
0.78
Treatment
8
7.33
0.92
2.87**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 5.11
0.32
TOTAL 26
14.00
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 24.22%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
42
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Number of flower cluster per plant of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 4 4 11 4
HAB
323
3 4 3 10 3
BBL 4 4 4 12 4
Torrent 3 4 4 11 4
HAB
63 4 3 3 10 3
Contender
3 4 3 10 3
Green
Crop
3 4 3 10 3
HAB
19 3 3 3 9 3
Lipstican
4 4 3 11 4
TOTAL
30 34 30 94 31
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2 1.19
0.59
Variety
8 2.07
0.26
1.19ns
2.59 3.89
Error
16 3.48 0.22
TOTAL 26 6.74
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 13.40 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
43
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Number of flower cluster per plant of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
4 3 3 10 3
HAB
323
4 4 3 11 4
BBL 3 3 3 9 3
Torrent
3 3 3 9 3
HAB
63
3 3 3 9 3
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 3 4 11 3
HAB
19
4 3 3 10 3
Lipstican
3 3 3 9 3
TOTAL
30 28 28 86 28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 % 0.01
Block
2 0.30
0.14
Variety
8 1.41
0.18
1.19ns
2.59 3.89
Error
16 2.37 0.15
TOTAL 26 4.07
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.08 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
44
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Number of Pod per cluster plant of nine bush snap varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 3 2 8 3
HAB
323
4 3 3 10 3
BBL 2 2 2 6 2
Torrent 3 2 3 8 3
HAB
63 3 3 3 9 3
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 2 2 7 2
HAB
19 2 3 3 8 3
Lipstican
2 3 2 7 2
TOTAL
25 24 23 72 24
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
BLOCK 2 0.22
0.11
Variety 8
4.00
0.50
2.12ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
3.78
0.24
TOTAL 26 8.00
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 18.22
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
45
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Number of pod cluster per plant of nine bush snap varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 3 3 9 3
HAB
323
3 4 3 10 3
BBL 4 4 3 11 4
Torrent 3 3 4 10 3
HAB
63 4 3 3 10 3
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 4 3 10 3
HAB
19 4 3 3 10 3
Lipstican
3 3 3 9 3
TOTAL
30 30 28 88 28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.30
0.15
Variety 8
1.19
0.15
0.64ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
3.70
0.23
TOTAL 26 5.19
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 14.76 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
46
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Number of seeds per pod of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
6 5 5 16 5b
HAB
323
6 6 6 18 6a
BBL 5 5 5 15 5b
Torrent 5 5 5 15 5b
HAB
63 5 6 5 16 5b
Contender
5 5 4 14 5b
Green
Crop
5 5 5 15 5b
HAB
19 5 6 6 17 6a
Lipstican
4 4 4 12 4b
TOTAL
46 47 45 138 46
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.22
0.11
Variety 8
8.00
1.00
6.55**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
2.44
0.15
TOTAL 26
10.67
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 7.65%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
47
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Weight of 200 seeds of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
50 55 45 150
50.00ef
HAB
323
50 45 45 140
46.67fg
BBL
60 55 55 170
56.67d
Torrent 60 60 60 180
60.00d
HAB
63 45 45 45 135
45.00g
Contender
90 90 80 260
86.67b
Green
Crop
85 80 80 245
81.67c
HAB
19 50 55 50 155
51.67e
Lipstican 115 115 110 340
113.33a
TOTAL
605 600 570 1775
591.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
79.63
39.82
Variety 8
12935.19
1616.90
214.92**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
120.37
7.52
TOTAL 26
13135.19
* * - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 4.17%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
48
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Seed length of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 12.80 12.70 12.20 37.70 12.57cd
HAB
323 12.50 13.00 11.80 37.30 12.43cd
BBL
14.70 13.90 14.40 43.00 14.33b
Torrent 13.00 13.70 13.00 39.70 13.23c
HAB
63 12.60 11.80 11.90 36.30 12.10d
Contender 17.10 16.80 17.00 50.90 17.00a
Green
Crop
16.10 14.30 14.80 45.20 15.07b
HAB
19 11.80 12.80 12.80 37.40 12.47cd
Lipstican 16.90 17.40 16.50 50.80 16.93a
TOTAL
127.50 126.40 124.40 378.30 126.13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.55
0.27
Variety 8
89.13
11.14
41.80
2.59 3.89
Error 16
4.26
0.27
TOTAL 26
93.95
* * - Highly Significant Coefficient of Variance = 3.68 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
49
APPENDIX TABLE 17. Seed width of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
5.40 5.20 5.30 15.90 5.30c
HAB
323 4.90 5.20 5.80 15.90 5.30c
BBL
5.20 5.20 5.50 15.90 5.30c
Torrent 5.80 5.60 5.50 16.90 5.63c
HAB
63 5.10 5.00 5.10 15.20 5.07c
Contender
6.70 6.80 6.10 19.60 6.53b
Green
Crop
7.60 6.30 6.10 20.00
6.67ab
HAB
19 5.60 5.40 5.30 16.30 5.43c
Lipstican 7.10 7.40 7.10 21.60 7.20a
TOTAL
53.40 52.10 54.8 160.3 52.43
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.16
0.08
Variety 8
14.08
1.76
13.33**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
2.11
0.13
TOTAL 26
16.35
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 6.24%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
50
APPENDIX TABLE 18. Percentage pod set of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 77.78 90.00 82.76 250.54 83.51
HAB
323 90..00 85.71 84.38 260.09 86.70
BBL
77.42 76.67 79.31 233.40 77.80
Torrent 82.35 82.76 93.55 258.70 86.22
HAB
63 96.88 84.85 87.10 268.83 89.61
Contender 78.79 78.13 75.76 232.70 77.57
Green
Crop
86.21 64.71 60.00 210.92 70.31
HAB
19 66.67 93.33 84.85 244.85 81.60
Lipstican 79.19 89.29 73.33 236.81 78.99
TOTAL
735.29 745.45 641.73 2196.84 732.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
33.41
16.71
Variety 8
823.23
102.90
1.47ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
1122.51
70.15
TOTAL 26
1979.15
ns - not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 10.27%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
51
APPENDIX TABLE 19. Number of marketable seed per 10m2 of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 1805 1860 1810 5475 1825
HAB
323 3433 3304 2824 9561 3187
BBL
1736 1760 1911 5407 1802
Torrent 881 2053 1712 4646 1549
HAB
63 2882 2888 2832 8602 2867
Contender 1644 1626 1423 4693 1564
Green
Crop
1860 1405 1618 4883 1628
HAB
19 3056 3223 2659 8918 2973
Lipstican 1548 1514 1544 4606 1535
TOTAL
18845 19689 19765 58299 19433
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
92235.85
46117.93
Variety 8
11486697.63 1435837.20
19.89**
2.59 3.89
Error
16
1155140.82 72196.30
TOTAL 26
12734074.30
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.77%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
52
APPENDIX TABLE 20. Weight of marketable seed per plot 10m2 of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.55 0.50 0.46 1.51 0.50d
HAB
323 0.79 0.77 0.64 2.20 0.73b
BBL
0.53 0.58 0.53 1.64 0.55cd
Torrent 0.33 0.65 0.52 1.50 0.50d
HAB
63 0.69 0.73 0.70 2.12 0.71b
Contender
0.76 0.72 0.60 2.08 0.69bc
Green
Crop
0.87 0.61 0.70 2.18 0.73b
HAB
19 0.86 0.91 0.71 2.48 0.83ab
Lipstican 0.95 0.89 0.90 2.74 0.91a
TOTAL
6.33 6.29 5.75 18.51 6.15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.03
0.01
Variety
8
0.49
0.06
8.24**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.12
0.01
TOTAL 26 0.63
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.6 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
53
APPENDIX TABLE 21. Number of non-marketable seeds per 10 m2 of nine bush snap
bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
348 478 502 1328 443a
HAB
323 510 377 428 1315 438a
BBL
297 354 218 869 290ab
Torrent 401 141 496 1038
346ab
HAB
63 504 436 384 1324 441a
Contender
501 332 289 1122
374ab
Green
Crop
278 204 170 652 217bc
HAB
19 304 310 191 805 268abc
Lipstican
163 124 78 365 122c
TOTAL
3306 2747 2756 8809 2936
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
22407.41
11203.70
Variety 8
301315.85
37664.48
4.70**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
128275.26
8017.20
TOTAL 26
451998.52
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 21.42%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
54
APPENDIX TABLE 22. Weight of non-marketable seed per plot 10m2 (kg) of nine bush
snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.08 0.11 0.09 0.28 0.093a
HAB
323
0.08 0.06 0.07 0.21
0.070abc
BBL 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.17
0.057bc
Torrent
0.10 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.050c
HAB
63
0.08 0.07 0.05 0.20
0.067abc
Contender
0.12 0.08 0.06 0.26
0.087ab
Green
Crop
0.08 0.05 0.04 0.17
0.057bc
HAB
19
0.06 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.047c
Lipstican
0.08 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.047c
TOTAL
0.74 0.54 0.44 1.72 0.573
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.01
0.00
Variety 8 0.01
0.00
2.85*
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.01
0.00
TOTAL 26 0.02
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 27.421%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
55
APPENDIX TABLE 23. Total seed yield per 10m2 (kg) of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.63 0.61 0.55 1.79 0.60c
HAB
323 0.87 0.83 0.71 2.41 0.80b
BBL
0.59 0.65 0.57 1.81 0.60c
Torrent 0.43 0.68 0.54 1.65 0.55c
HAB
63 0.77 0.74 0.75 2.26 0.75b
Contender
0.88 0.80 0.66 2.34 0.78b
Green
Crop
0.95 0.66 0.74 2.35 0.78b
HAB
19 0.92 0.97 0.75 2.64 0.88ab
Lipstican 1.03 0.92 0.93 2.88 0.96a
TOTAL
7.07 6.86 6.20 20.13 6.70
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.05
0.02
Variety 8 0.45
0.06
8.18**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.11
0.01
TOTAL 26 0.60
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 11.15%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
56
APPENDIX TABLE 24. Computed seed yield per hectare (kg) of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
630 610 550 1790
596.67c
HAB
323 870 830 710 2410
803.33b
BBL
590 650 570 1810
603.33c
Torrent 430 680 540 1650
550.00c
HAB
63 770 740 750 2260
753.33b
Contender
880 800 660 2340
780.00b
Green
Crop
950 660 740 2350
783.33b
HAB
19 920 970 750 2640
880.67ab
Lipstican 1030 920 930 2880
960.00a
TOTAL
7070 6860 6200 20130
6710.66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
45800.00
22900.00
Variety 8
452133.33
56516.67
8.18**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
110533.33
6908.33
TOTAL 26
608466.67
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 11.15%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
57
APPENDIX TABLE 25. Harvest index of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.27 0.23 0.21 0.71 0.24
HAB
323 0.26 0.20 0.25 0.71 0.24
BBL
0.21 0.23 0.24 0.68 0.23
Torrent 0.23 0.32 0.24 0.79 0.26
HAB
63 0.33 0.26 0.28 0.87 0.29
Contender
0.26 0.19 0.27 0.72 0.24
Green
Crop
0.31 0.29 0.20 0.80 0.27
HAB
19 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.75 0.25
Lipstican 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.81 0.27
TOTAL
2.35 2.27 2.19 6.81 2.29
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.00
0.00
Variety 8 0.01
0.00
.89ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.02
0.00
TOTAL 26 0.03
ns – not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 14.81%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
DARIO, WESLEY O. APRIL 2007. Agronomic Characters of Bush Snap bean
Varieties Under Organic Production at La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Belinda A Tad-awan, PhD.
ABSTRACT
The study aimed to determine; the agronomic characters of different bush snap
bean varieties grown organically, the best performing variety of bush snap bean in terms
of growth, yield and resistance of pest and diseases under organic production and the
economic benefit of planting different bush snap bean varieties under organic production.
The nine snap bean varieties significantly varied in their maturity, height at 30
and 77 DAP, number of branches, number of seeds per pod, weight of 200 seeds, number
and weight of marketable seeds and total yield.
Contender and “Lipstican” were earliest to produce pods. HAB 323 produced the
most seeds per pod. “Lipstican” significantly produced the highest seed yield. HAB 19
had the highest return on cash expense. HAB 323, HAB 19, Contender and “Lipstican”,
Green Crop are the best yielders and most profitable to grow under organic production at
Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………..
i
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….
i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………
ii
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………………..
3
METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………... 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………...
12
Meteorological Data…………………………………………………...
12
Soil Chemical Properties………………………………………………
13
Days from Sowing to Emergence ……………………………………
13
Days from Emergence to Flowering…………………………………..
14
Days from Emergence to First and
Last Harvesting……………………………………………...……..
14
Days from Emergence to Pod Setting…………………………………
14
Days from Flowering to Pod setting…………………………………
15
Height at 30 and 77 DAP……………………………………………..
16
Number of Branches Per Plant………………………………………..
17
Number of Flower Clusters Per Plant…………………….…………...
17
Number of Flowers Per Cluster ………………………………………
18
Number of Pod Clusters Per Plant……………………………………
18
Number of Pods Per Cluster………………………………………….
19
ii
Percentage Pod set………………………………………………….…
19
Number of Seeds Per Pod………………………………………….…
20
Seed Length ……………………………………………………….…
20
Seed Width……………………………………………….…………..
20
Number and Weight of Marketable Seeds ………………….…….….
21
Number and Weight of Non-Marketable Seeds………….…………...
22
Weight of 200 Seeds………………………………………………….
23
Total Seed Yield………………………………………………...……
23
Computed Seed Yield…………………………………………………
23
Pest and Disease Occurrence………………………………………….
25
Harvest Index………………………………………………………….
26
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)…………………………………….
27
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ……….……
29
Summary……………………………………………………………..
29
Conclusions………………………………………………….……….
30
Recommendation…………………………………………………….
30
LITERATURE CITED ………………………………………………………
31
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………….
32
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), a vegetable legume, commonly source of plant
protein for human diet as well as feed supplement for animals. It is also rich in vitamins
and soluble carbohydrates. Snap bean thrives well in cool medium to high altitude in
tropical countries (World Book Encyclopedia, 1991).
According to surveys, Benguet farmers commonly practice monocropping of snap
bean under conventional farming with the intensive use of chemical and synthetic
fertilizers. Such practices meant to increase production contributed to several problems
like soil degradation, water contamination, air pollution, resistance to insects and diseases
and further reduction in yield. Due to these problems alternative farming is important to
consider. One of these is the production without the use of synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides and practice of crop diversity. These practices are all embraced in organic
farming.
In organic farming, the use of resistant varieties against diseases and insects that
would minimize the use of synthetic fungicides and insecticides. It is, therefore,
important to introduce resistant and high yielding snap bean varieties adapted to organic
production.
According to Colting (1994), application of organic fertilizers affects favorable
changes in soil properties. In general, the pH and organic matter content of the soil
increased after harvesting of the plants. This indicates that organic farming allows the
production of crops while enhancing soil productivity.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
2
The result of the study will provide information to farmers in selecting snap bean
varieties, which are high yielding, insect and disease resistant and adapted to organic
production.
The objectives of the study were to:
1. determine the agronomic characters of different bush snap bean varieties grown
organically;
2. determine the best performing variety of bush snap bean in terms of growth, seed
yield and resistance to pest and disease under organic production; and
3. determine the economic benefit of planting different bush snap bean varieties
under organic production.
The study was conducted at the BSU Experimental Station Balili, La Trinidad,
Benguet form October 2006 to January 2007.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Organic Farming Defined
According to Sullivan (2003), organic farming system avoid using synthetic
fertilizers, pesticides and growth regulators, and relies on crop rotations, crop residues,
animal manures, legumes, green manuring, off-farm waste, mechanical cultivation,
mineral bearing rocks and biological pest control to maintain the health of the soil, plant
nutrient supply and minimize insect, weeds and disease.
Components of Organic Farming
Use of organic fertilizers. Since commercial are petroleum – based, the make the
soil acidic and hard. As a result, beneficial microbes cannot thrive and the natural
fertility of the soil is lost. On the other hand, organic fertilizers improve drainage and
aeration of heavy soils. It promotes plant resistance to virus and pest (Landacan, 1993).
Organic fertilizers supply some amount of the nutrient requirements of the crop
they promote favorable soil properties, such as granulation and good tilt for efficient
aeration, easy root penetration and improve water holding capacity (PCCARD, 1982).
Koshino (1990) stated that nutrient elements form organic fertilizer are slowly
released and particularly important in avoiding salt injury, ensuring a continuous supply
of nutrients during the growing season and in producing product of better quality.
Compost as an organic fertilizer. Application of compost improves the
physiological chemical and biological condition of the soil besides providing plant
nutrients. The humus in compost serves as the colloidal material with negative electric
chare and coagulated with cation and soil particles to form granules. Soil with more
granules is less sticky, high buffering capacity, and has better permeability and greater
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
4
water holding capacity. It is capable of regulating plant growth and disease occurrence
(Sangatnan and Sangatnan, 2000). In addition, Pataras (1984) stated that through the
application of compost fertilizers is best way to prepare of soil for vegetables production
that can improve the soil structure making it ideal for crop production.
Mechalak (1994) cited that compost is a good source of organic matter and
nutrient for plants. It improves soil structure and water retention. Compost contains
beneficial microorganisms that suppress plant pathogen in soil.
Compost application replenishes soil organic matter or humus being depleted with
continuous cropping. Application of compost also activates soil microorganisms,
consequently increasing the availability of nutrients that plant feed on (Marquez, 1988).
Follet (1981) added that organic residues on the soil protect the land against
raindrop, splash erosion and reduce the extreme of surface temperature. When organic
residues are decomposed, they supply some essential nutrient needed by plants, and
makes macronutrients ready available to plant over wide range.
Crop protection in organic farming. According to Pawar (2005) controlling pest
is done with no use of chemical methods. An organic farmer strategy is to prevent
through good plant nutrition and management to control pest and diseases. An organic
farmer relies on diverse population of soil organisms beneficial insects and birds to keep
the pest in check. The use of predators, mating disruption, traps and growers will
implement barriers when pest population gets out of balance. Sanitation and cultural
practices and required first to growers before can resort to applying an organic pesticide
to control problems on weeds insects and diseases.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
5
Diversity in organic farming. As cited by Pawar (2005), crop diversification
includes farming system as multistory cropping, mixed cropping, crop rotation and
intercropping etc. that includes ecological benefits, which maintain production efficiency.
As a result this practice it increases yield, reduces pest incidence, improved weed control,
and reduces soil erosion, the cycling of nutrient reserves form depth of soil and transfer
from nitrogen fixing species.
Importance of Varietal Evaluation in Organic Farming
Organic farming expects that the proposed standard variety is locally adapted,
with resistance to pest and diseases so that high product will be obtained. However, the
new revisions limit the use of non-organically produced seeds. Therefore, certified
organic seed, bulbs, tubers, annual cuttings, are required to use by farmers and varieties
they use should be well adapted to specific soil and fertility conditions. In several
circumstances varieties that do not perform well in organic system have difference yield
performance. Therefore, in selection of varieties farmers should consider the consumer
requirement, supermarket requirement, variety maturity in order to achieve the best
production needed (Singh 1999).
In 2006, Montes evaluated the growth and yield of potato in an organic farm at
Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. The result revealed that genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2.
Kennebec and Ganza were highly vigorous plants at 35 DAP. Genotype 676089 produced
the tallest plant had the highest weight of tubers and highest dry matter content of tubers.
Genotypes IP84007.67, 676070 and 13.1.1 were resistant to late blight.
.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An area of 270 sq. m. which previously planted with potato for organic
production was properly cleaned and prepared. The area was divided into three blocks
consisting of ten plots each measuring 1m x 10 m. The experiment was laid out using
randomized complete block design (RCBD).
The varieties used as treatment were:
VARIETY/ENTRY
SOURCE
V1 = Landmark
BSU
V2 = HAB 323
IPB-HRS
V3
=
BBL
BSU
V4
=
Torrent
IPB-HRS
V5 = HAB 63
BSU
V6 = Contender
IPB-HRS
V7 = Green Crop
IPB-HRS
V8 = HAB 19
BSU
V9 = Lipstican
Kalinga
Planting and Planting Distance
Seeds were sown at a distance of 25 cm x 25 cm between hills and rows at 2-3
seeds per hill.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
7
Cultural Management Practices
Compost at the rate of 10 kg. per 10m2 was applied two weeks before planting.
Cultural management practices like weeding, irrigation were uniformly employed.
Yellow traps were placed for leaf miner control. There was no use of synthetic fertilizers
and pesticides. Marigold and corn were planted around the area to encourage crop
diversity and lessen pest infestation.
Data Gathered:
1. Maturity
a. Days from sowing to emergence. This was obtained by counting the days form
sowing to emergence.
b. Days from emergence to flower. This was recorded by counting the days form
emergence until the plants produce flower.
c. Days from flowering to pod setting. This was obtained by counting the days from
flowering until flowers become pods.
d. Days from emergence to pod setting. This was obtained by counting the days
from emergence until they become pods.
e. Day form emergence to first harvesting. This was recorded by counting the days
from emergence to first harvesting.
f. Day form emergence to last harvesting. This was recorded by counting the days
from emergence to last harvesting.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
8
2. Vegetative Characters
a. Plant height at 30 and 77 DAP. The height was measured from the base of the
plant to the youngest shoot at 30 DAP and at harvest using foot rule from ten sample
plants per entry.
b. Number of branches per plant. This was obtained by counting the branches per
plant per entry.
3. Reproductive Characters
a. Number of flower clusters per plant. This was recorded by counting the flower
clusters form ten sample plants per entry.
b. Number of flowers per cluster. This was recorded by counting the number of
flowers per cluster from ten sample plants per entry.
c. Number of pods per cluster. The number of pods per cluster was obtained by
counting the pods produced.
d. Number of pods per cluster. This was obtained by getting the number of pods per
cluster.
e. Percentage pod set per cluster (%). This was obtained using following formula
Total number of pods / cluster
%
pod
setting
=
x
100
Total number of flower/cluster
f. Number of seeds per pod. The number of seeds per pod was counted from ten
sample pods per entry.
g. Seed length (mm). The seed was measured using a foot rule.
h. Seed width (mm). The mid-portion of the seed was measured by using a foot
rule.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
9
4. Yield and Yield Components
a. Number and weight of marketable seeds per plot (kg). This was obtained by
counting and weighing the marketable seeds per plot per entry.
b. Number and weight of non-marketable seeds per plot (kg). This was obtained by
counting and weighing non-marketable seeds that were damaged, small sized and infested
with pod borer.
c. Weight of 200 seed (g). This was obtained by weighing 200 seeds per plot per
entry.
d. Total seed yield per plot (kg). This was obtained by getting the total number and
weight of marketable and non-marketable seeds per plot.
e. Computed seed yield per hectare (kg). This was computed yield per hectare based
on the yield per plot using the formula.
Total yield/plot
Yield (tons/ha) =
x 10,000
Plot size (m2)
5. Pest and Disease Incidence
a. Pod Borer (Jose, 2004)
Scale
Percent
Infestation
Description
1
No infection
High resistance
2
1-25% of the total plant/plot
Mild resistance
was
infected.
3 25-50%
of
the
total
Moderate
Resistance
plant/plot
was
infected
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
10
4 51-75%
of
the
total
Susceptible
plant/plot was infected
5 76-100%
of
the
total
Very
susceptible
plant/plot
was
infected
b. Bean Rust (Jose, 2004)
Scale
Percent
Infestation
Description
1
No infection
High resistance
2
1-25% of the total plant/plot
Mild resistance
was
infected.
3 25-50%
of
the
total
Moderate
Resistance
plant/plot
was
infected
4 51-75%
of
the
total
Susceptible
plant/plot
was
infected
5 76-100%
of
the
total
Very
susceptible
plant/plot
was
infected
6. Harvest Index. This was taken by the following formula.
S1DW
HI =
RDW+S1DW+LDW+PSDW+S2DW
Where:
S1DW = Seeds dry weight
RDW = Root dry weight
LDW = Leaves dry weight
PSWD = Pod shell dry weight
S2WD = Stem dry weight
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
11
7. Return on Cash Expense (ROCE). This was obtained using the following formula:
Net Income
ROCE
= x
100
Total Cost of Production
Data Analysis
All quantitative data were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
differences among the treatment means was tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Meteorological Data During the Conduct of the Study
Table 1 shows the temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine
duration during the conduct of the study. Temperature ranged from 12.6 oC to 24.5 oC.
The relative humidity was 78%. The rainfall was low with an average of 1.26 mm.
Sunshine duration ranged from 381.9 to 521.6 kj. Temperature was favorable for snap
bean production. Snap beans grow best in areas with temperature between 15 to 21 oC.
Bush varieties can tolerate low temperature better than the climbing varieties
(HARRDEC, 2000).
Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine duration during
the conduct of the study
MONTHS TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE RAINFALL SUNSHINE
HUMIDITY
AMOUNT DURATION
MAX MIN
(%)
(mm)
(kj)
November
23.5 15.2 80 2.5 381.4
December
24.5 15.6 70 2.5 387.0
January 23.9 13.9 77 0.03
386.6
February 23.6 12.6 77 0 521.6
MEAN 23.8
16.33 78 1.26
419.15
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
13
Soil Chemical Properties
Table 2 shows the pH, OM, N, P, and K before planting. The soil pH was 6.72,
soil content such as organic matter (2.5 %), phosphorous (90 ppm), potassium (312 ppm)
and for nitrogen (0.125 %) maybe favorable for snap bean production. Snap bean can
tolerate soil pH 5.5 to 6.5 but perform best between a pH range of 5.8 to 6.0 (HARRDEC,
2000).
Table 2. Soil chemical properties of the experimental area before planting
Before planting
Soil chemical properties/content
PH
6.72
OM(%)
2.5
N (%)
0.125
P (ppm)
90
K (ppm)
312
Days from Sowing to Emergence
Statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences on the number of days
from sowing to emergence among the nine varieties evaluated (Table 3). Landmark,
HAB 323, Torrent, HAB 63, Green Crop and HAB 19 were the earliest to emerge within
seven days. BBL, Contender and “Lipstican” were the latest to emerge.
The ability of the varieties to germinate could be attributed to their varietal
characteristics.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
14
Days from Emergence to Flowering
Contender and “:Lipstican” showed highly significant differences from
emergence to flowering as compared to Torrent, Landmark and BBL which were the
latest to produce flower (34 days). Other varieties produced flowers within 33 days from
emergence. The flowering differences could be attributed to their genetic make-up.
Days from Emergence to First and Last Harvesting
Highly significant differences were noted on the number of days from emergence
to first harvesting (Table 3). Contender was the earliest to be harvested at 73 days while
BBL was the latest to be harvested at 83 days from emergence. Contender was the first to
be harvested in 76 days. BBL was the latest to be harvested at 89 days from emergence.
Days from Emergence to Pod Setting
Table 4 shows the number of days from emergence to pod setting. Highly
significant differences were observed on the number of days from emergence to pod
setting. Contender and “Lipstican” were the earliest to produce pods at 35 days from
emergence. The latest to produce pods was the BBL (38 days). Other varieties produced
pods at 37 days from emergence.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
15
Table 3. Number of days from sowing to emergence, from emergence to flowering, and
to first harvesting and last harvesting of nine bush snap bean varieties
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM
VARIETY
SOWING
EMERGENCE
EMERGENCE
EMERGENCE
TO
TO
TO FIRST
TO LAST
EMERGENCE
FLOWERING
HARVESTING HARVESTING
Landmark 7a
34c
77b
84b
HAB 323
7a
33b
77b
84b
BBL 8b
34c
83c
89c
Torrent 7a
34c
77b
84b
HAB 63
7a
33b
74ab
77ab
Contender 8b
31a
73a
76a
Green Crop
7a
33b
77b
84b
HAB 19
7a
33b
74ab
77ab
Lipstican 8b
31a
77b
84b
CV( %)
0
0.93
0
1.17
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Days From Flowering to Pod Setting
Table 4 shows highly significant differences on the number of days from
flowering to pod setting. Landmark and Torrent were the earliest to produce pods. On
the other hand, HAB 323, HAB 63, HAB 19, “Lipstican” Green Crop and Contender
produce pods later at 4 days from flowering
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
16
Table 4. Number of days from emergence to pod setting, and flowering to pod setting of
nine bush snap bean varieties
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM:
VARIETY
EMERGENCE TO
FLOWERING TO
POD SETTING
POD SETTING
Landmark 37b
3a
HAB 323
37b
4b
BBL 38c
4b
Torrent 37b
3a
HAB 63
37b
4b
Contender 35a
4b
Green Crop
37b
4b
HAB 19
37b
4b
Lipstican 35a
4b
CV ( %)
0.83
0
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Height at 30 and at 77 DAP
Table 5 shows the height at the plants at 30 and 77 DAP. HAB 323 significantly
produced the tallest plants but comparable with “Lipstican”, HAB 19, HAB 63 and
Torrent. Variety Landmark produce the shortest plants. At 77 DAP, all varieties had
increased in height. Green Crop and Torrent significantly produced the tallest plants. The
shortest plants were obtained from HAB 323 but was comparable with Landmark, HAB
63, Contender, HAB 19 and “Lipstican.”
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
17
Number of Branches Per Plant
The most branches per plant were obtained from HAB 323, Contender, Green
Crop and HAB 19 with three branches which is comparable with those obtained from
BBL, Land mark, HAB 63. “Lipstican” and Torrent produced two and one branch per
plant, respectively (Table 5).
Numbers of Flower Clusters per Plant
No significant differences among the nine varieties were noted on the number of
flower clusters per plant (Table 6). Flower cluster per plant ranged from 3-4.
Table 5. Height at 30 and 77 DAP and number of branches per plant of nine bush snap
bean varieties
HEIGHT
VARIETY
30 DAP
77 DAP
NUMBER OF BRANCHES
(cm)
(cm)
PER PLANT
Landmark 9.25d
20.88cb
2ab
HAB 323
12.99a
20.37c
3a
BBL 11.08c
23.50b
2ab
Torrent 12.57ab
27.29a
1b
HAB 63
12.72ab
22.07cb
2ab
Contender 11.53bc
21.65cb
3a
Green Crop
11.97abc
27.64a
3a
HAB 19
12.79ab
21.14cb
3a
Lipstican 12.72ab
21.47cb
2ab
CV (%)
5.54
6.96
24.22
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
18
Number of Flowers Per Cluster
No significant differences were noted on the number of flowers per cluster. The
varieties evaluated produced 3 to 4 flowers per cluster (Table 6).
Number of Pod Clusters Per Plant
No significant differences were observed on the number of pod clusters per plant
(Table 7). Pod cluster ranged from 3-4 per plant.
Table 6. Number of flower clusters and flowers per clusters per plant of nine bush snap
bean varieties
VARIETY NUMBER
FLOWER CLUSTER
FLOWER PER CLUSTER
Landmark 4
3
HAB 323
3
4
BBL 4
3
Torrent 4
3
HAB 63
3
3
Contender 3
3
Green Crop
3
3
HAB 19
3
3
Lipstican 4
3
CV %
13.40
12.08
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
19
Number of Pods Per Cluster
No significant difference was noted on the number of pods per cluster among the
nine varieties evaluated (Table 7). Pods per cluster ranged from 2-3 per plant.
Percentage Pod Set
HAB 63 had the highest pod set of 89.6%. Green Crop had the lowest percentage
pod set of 70.31% (Table 7). However, the differences among varieties were not
significant.
Table 7. Number of pod cluster, pods per cluster per plant and percentage pod set of nine
bush snap bean varieties
NUMBER
VARIETY
PERCENTAGE
POD
PODS PER
POD SET
CLUSTER/PLANT
CLUSTER
Landmark 3 3
83.51ab
HAB 323
4
3
86.70ab
BBL 3
2
77.80ab
Torrent 3
3
86.22ab
HAB 63
3
3
89.61a
Contender 3 3
77.57ab
Green Crop
3
2
70.31b
HAB 19
3
3
81.60ab
Lipstican 3
2
78.94ab
CV %
14.76
18.22
10.72
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
20
Number of Seeds Per Pod
HAB 323 and HAB 19 significantly produced the most seeds per pod.
“Lipstican” had the least seeds per pod (Table 8). The significant differences could be
attributed to their varietal characteristics. More seeds were noted from the small seeded
varieties (HAB 323 and HAB 19) as compared with the larger seeds obtained from
“Lipstican.”
Seed Length
Highly significant differences were observed on seed length (Table 8). Contender
and “Lipstican” had significantly obtained the longest seeds. The shortest seeds were
obtained from HAB 63 but comparable with Landmark, HAB 323 and HAB 19.
Seed Width
“Lipstican” had significantly obtained the widest seeds followed by Green Crop
but was comparable with Contender. The narrowest seeds were obtained from HAB 63
(Table 8).
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
21
Table 8. Number of seeds per pod, seed length and seed width of nine bush snap bean
varieties
.
SEED
VARIETY
NUMBER OF SEEDS
PER POD
LENGTH WIDTH
(mm) (mm)
Landmark 5b
12.57cd
5.30c
HAB 323
6a
12.43cd
4.97c
BBL 5b
14.33b
5.30c
Torrent 5b
13.23c
5.63c
HAB 63
5b
12.10d
5.07c
Contender 5b
17.00a
6.53b
Green Crop
5b
15.07b
6.67b
HAB 19
6a
12.47cd
5.43c
Lipstican 4c
16.93a
7.20a
CV %
7.65
3.68
6.24
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Number and Weight of Marketable Seeds
Highly significant differences among the varieties were noted for numbers of
marketable seeds (Table 9). HAB 323, HAB 19, and HAB 63 produced the most seeds
per 10 m2. The lowest number of marketable seeds was obtained from “Lipstican”. For
seed weight, significant differences were observed among the varieties tested.
“Lipstican” significantly produced the heaviest marketable seeds but comparable with
HAB 19. The lowest weight of marketable seeds was obtained from Torrent.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
22
Number and Weight of Non-Marketable Seeds
Landmark, HAB 323, HAB63 had significantly produced the most non-
marketable seeds but comparable with BBL, Torrent and Contender, “Lipstican”
produced the lowest number of non-marketable, which maybe due to moderate resistance
to pod borer. As to the weight of non- marketable seeds, Landmark, HAB 323 and HAB
63 produced the highest weight. “Lipstican” produced the lowest weight of non-
marketable seeds.
Table 9. Number and weight of marketable and non-marketable seeds of nine bush
snap bean varieties
MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE
VARIETY
NUMBER WEIGHT NUMBER WEIGHT
(kg/10m2)
(kg/10m2)
Landmark 1825b
0.50d
443c
0.090c
HAB 323
3187a
0.73b
438c
0.070abc
BBL 1802b
0.55dc
290ab
0.057b
Torrent 1549b
0.50d
346ab
0.050a
HAB 63
2869a
0.71b
441c
0.067abc
Contender 1564b
0.69c
347ab
0.087ab
Green Crop
1628b
0.73b
217b
0.057b
HAB 19
2973a
0.83ab
268abc
0.047a
Lipstican 1535b
0.919a
122a
0.047a
CV
%
12.77 12.61 27.42 27.42
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
23
Weight of 200 Seeds
Highly significant results were obtained on the weight of 200 seeds per 10 m2
(Table 10). “Lipstican” had significantly produced the highest weight while HAB 63
produced the lowest weight of 200 seeds with a mean of 45g per 10 m2.
The heavy seeds of ‘Lipstican” could be attributed to long and wide seeds.
Total Seed Yield
The heaviest seed yield per plot was produced by ”Lipstican” (Table 10).
Comparable seed yield was harvested from HAB 19. However, slight difference in yield
of Green Crop, Contender, HAB 63, and HAB 323 was obtained. All the aforementioned
varieties significantly outyielded Landmark, BBL and Torrent.
The high seed yield of “Lipstican”, Contender, HAB 63 and HAB 323 could be
due to long and wide seeds produced. Fig. 1 shows the harvested seeds from the nine
varieties evaluated under organic production.
Computed Seed Yield
Table 10 presents the computed seed yield per hectare of different bush snap bean
varieties studied. “Lipstican” significantly outyielded all the varieties evaluated but has
comparable yield with HAB 19. The results show that “Lipstican” is the best yielder
under organic production at La Trinidad, Benguet.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
24
Lipstican
BBL
Landmark
HAB 19
Contender
Green Crop
Torrent
HAB 323
HAB 63
Fig. 1. Seeds from the nine bush snap bean varieties
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
25
Table 10. Weight of 200 seeds, total seed yield per plot and computed yield per hectare
of nine bush snap bean varieties
SEED YIELD
VARIETY
WEIGHT OF 200
SEEDS (g)
Kg/10m2 Kg/Ha
Landmark 50.00ef
0.60c
596.67c
HAB 323
46.67fg
0.80b
803.33b
BBL 56.67d
0.60c
603.33c
Torrent 60.00d
0.55c
550.00c
HAB 63
45.00gb 0.75b
753.33b
Contender 86.67b
0.78b
780.00b
Green Crop
81.67c
0.78b
783.33b
HAB 19
51.67e
0.88ab
880.67ab
Lipstican 113.67a
0.96a
960.00a
CV %
4.17
11.15
11.15
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Bean Rust and Pod Borer Occurrence
Visual rating for occurrence of bean rust and pod borer among the nine varieties
was done during the reproductive stage. It was observed that all the varieties evaluated
were susceptible to bean rust. For pod borer, “Lipstican” and Green Crop showed mild
resistance. BBL, Torrent and Contender were moderately resistant while Landmark, HAB
323 and HAB 63 were susceptible to pod borer infestation.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
26
Table 11. Pod borer occurrence of nine bush snap bean varieties
VARIETY
POD BORER RATING
Landmark
Susceptible
HAB
323
Susceptible
BBL
Moderate
Resistant
Torrent
Moderate
Resistant
HAB
63
Susceptible
Contender
Moderate
Resistant
Green
Crop
Mild
Resistance
HAB
19
Moderate
Resistant
Lipstican
Mild
Resistance
Harvest Index
Table 12 shows the harvest index of the nine varieties evaluated. Numerically,
HAB 323 had the highest harvest index followed by Contender and “Lipstican”. The
lowest harvest index was obtained from BBL. However, no significant difference among
varieties was noted.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
27
Table 12. Harvest index of nine bush snap bean varieties
VARIETY
HARVEST INDEX
Landmark 0.24
HAB 323
0.24
BBL 0.23
Torrent 0.26
HAB 63
0.29
Contender 0.24
Green Crop
0.27
HAB 19
0.25
Lipstican 0.27
CV% 14.81
Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P>0.05)
Return on Cash Expenses (ROCE)
Positive ROCE was obtained from the eight varieties tested. HAB 19 had the
highest ROCE with 74.93 % followed by HAB 323 (55.18 %), “Lipstican” (54.06 %) and
Green Crop (53.78 %). Landmark which produced low marketable yield had a negative
ROCE. BBL obtained the lowest ROCE with 0.64 %.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
28
Table 13. Cost and return analysis of nine bush snap bean varieties (270 m2)
VARIETY TOTAL
COSTOF SEED YIELD
GROSS
NET
PRODUCTION
(kg)
INCOME
INCOME ROCE %
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
Landmark 423.67
1.51 392.60
-31.07
-7.33
HAB 323
453.67
2.20
704.00
250.33
55.18
BBL 423.67 1.64 426.40
2.73
0.64
Torrent 453.67
1.50 480.00
26.33
5.80
HAB 63
423.67
2.12
551.20
127.53
30.10
Contender 453.67
2.08 665.60
211.93
46.71
Green Crop
453.67
2.18
697.60
243.97
53.78
HAB 19
453.67
2.48
793.60
339.93
74.93
Lipstican 418.67
2.74 685.00
266.33
54.06
- Total expenses include land preparation, seeds, compost, maintenance which
includes weeding, irrigation, and hilling – up.
- Selling price: HAB 323, Torrent, Contender, Green Crop and HAB
= Php 320.00/kg
Land mark, BBL, HAB 63 = 260.00/kg
Lipstican = Php 250.00/kg
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
29
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet to determine; the
agronomic characters of different bush snap bean varieties grown organically, the best
performing variety of bush snap bean in terms of growth, yield and resistance of pest and
diseases and the economic benefit of planting different bush snap bean varieties under
organic production.
The results revealed that Landmark, HAB 323, Torrent, HAB 63 Green Crop and
HAB 19 were the earliest to emerge and produce pods. “Lipstican” and Contender were
the earliest to produce flower and to be harvested. HAB 323 produced the tallest plants at
30 DAP. However, Green Crop was the tallest at 77 DAP. There no significant
differences among varieties on the number of flower clusters, flowers per cluster, pod
clusters, pods per cluster and percentage pod set.
Among the varieties, “Lipstican” had the heaviest weight of 200 seeds,
marketable seeds, total seed yield per 10 m2 and per hectare. Contender showed
comparable result with “Lipstican” producing high marketable seed yield. As for
resistance to pod borer, Green Crop and “Lipstican” were rated mild resistance.
Positive ROCE was obtained for the eight varieties. Only Landmark obtained a
negative ROI. The highest ROCE were obtained from HAB 19, HAB 323, “Lipstican”
and Green Crop.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
30
Conclusions
“Lipstican” and HAB 19 consistently showed good agronomic performance under
organic production. These varieties are early maturing, high yielding and resistant pod
borer under La Trinidad condition.
Recommendation
Based on the conditions of the study, “Lipstican” and HAB 19 could be
recommended for organic production under La Trinidad, Benguet.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
31
LITERATURE CITED
COLTING, R. D. 1994. Yield response of snap bean and cabbage o pure organic
fertilization. The Philippine Journal of Crop Science. 19(1):10
FOLLET, L. H. 1981. Fertilizer and amendment. McGraw Hill Publishing Inc. United
State of America. P. 4.
HARRDEC. 2000.Snapbean farmer production guide. Brochure. Pp. 2
KOSHINO, S. O. 1990.The use of organic and chemical fertilizers. BS.Thesis. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.P.1.
JOSE, M. C. 2004. Varietal characterization, evaluation and correlation study in bush
snap bean. . BS.Thesis Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 9-
10.
LANDACAN, J. 1993. Comparative Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Growth and Yield
of Statice. Highland Agricultural R. and D Highlights. Pp. 89-90.
MARQUEZ, M. 1988. Utilization of azolla as organic fertilizers for cabbage and white
potato. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.4-6.
MECHALAK, P. S. 1994. Successful Organic Gardening Vegetables. MOE Becket.
Kevin Weldom Production. Pp. 44-46.
MONTES, F. R. 2006. Growth and yield of potato genotypes in an organic form at
Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. BS.Thesis Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P.31.
PCCARD. 1982. The Philippine Recommends for fertility management. Technical
Bulletin Series no. 36. Los Baños, Laguna.
PATARAS, K. T. 1984. Response of snapbean to organic fertilizers. BS.Thesis.Benguet
State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P. 35.
PAWAR, V. M. and S. N. PURI. 2005. Organic Farming. In/agri/extension/html/chapter
9.
SANGATNAN, P. D. and R. L. SANGATNAN. 2000. Organic Farming. P.D. Sangatnan
Marketing, Lapaz, Iloilo City. P.145.
SINGH, H. 1999. Importance of variety evaluation in organic farming. Retrieved.
November 28, 2006 from www.onefish/archice/sifar./SESINDAC.AC.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
32
SULLIVAN, P. 2003 Organic Rice Production. Retrieved. November 25, 2006
http:/www.Attrq.Org//attar-pub/rice.htm.
WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA. 1991. The World Book Encyclopedia. Volume 2. P.
181.
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
33
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence of nine snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
7 7 7 21
7b
HAB
323
7 7 7 21
7b
BBL 8 8 8 24
8a
Torrent 7 7 7 21
7b
HAB
63 7 7 7 21
7b
Contender
8 8 8 24
8a
Green
Crop
7 7 7 21
7b
HAB
19 7 7 7 21
7b
Lipstican
8 8 8 24
8a
TOTAL 66 66 66 198 66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.00
0.00
Treatment
8
6.00
0.75
99999.99**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.00
0.00
TOTAL 26
6.000
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
34
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Number of days from emergence to flowering of nine bush snap
bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
34 34 34 102 34c
HAB
323
32 33 33 98 33b
BBL
33 34 34 101 34c
Torrent 34 34 34 102 34c
HAB
63 33 33 33 99 33b
Contender
31 31 32 94 31a
Green
Crop
33 33 33 99 33b
HAB
19 33 33 33 99 33b
Lipstican
31 31 31 93 31a
TOTAL 294 296 297 887 296
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.52
0.26
Treatment
8
27.41
0.43
37.00**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
1.48
0.09
TOTAL 26
29.41
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0.93%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
35
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Number of days from flowering to pod setting of nine snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 3 3 9 3a
HAB
323
4 4 4 12
4b
BBL 4 4 4 12
4b
Torrent 3 3 3 9 3a
HAB
63 4 4 4 12
4b
Contender
4 4 4 12
4b
Green
Crop
4 4 4 12
4b
HAB
19 4 4 4 12
4b
Lipstican
4 4 4 12
4b
TOTAL 34 34 34 105 34
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 0.00
0.00
Treatment
8
4.67
0.58
99999.99**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 0.00
0.00
TOTAL 26 4.07
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0.%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
36
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Number of days from emergence to pod setting of nine snap
bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
37 37 37 111
37b
HAB
323
36 37 37 110
37b
BBL
37 38 38 113
38c
Torrent 37 37 37 111
37b
HAB
63 37 37 37 111
37b
Contender
37 35 36 106
35a
Green
Crop
35 37 37 111
37b
HAB
19 37 37 37 111
37b
Lipstican
37 35 35 105
35a
TOTAL 328 330 331 989 330
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 0.52
0.26
Treatment
8
18.30
2.29
24.70**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 1.48
0.09
TOTAL 26
20.30
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0.83%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
37
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Number of days from emergence to first harvesting of nine bush
snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II
III
Landmark 77
77
77
231 77c
HAB 323
77
77
77
231
77c
BBL 83 83 83 249 83d
Torrent 77
77 77 231 77c
HAB 63
74
74
74
222
74b
Contender 73
73
73
219 73a
Green Crop
77
77
77
231
77c
HAB 19
74
74
74
222
74b
Lipstican 77
77
77
231 77c
TOTAL 695
695 695 2,085 695
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 0.0
0.00
Treatment
8
6.00
0.75
99999.99**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 0.00
0.00
TOTAL 26 6.00
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 0%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
38
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Number of days from emergence to last harvesting of nine bush
snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
84 84 84 252 84c
HAB
323
84 84 84 2252
84c
BBL 89 89 89 267 89d
Torrent
84 84 84 252 84c
HAB
63
77 77 77 231 77b
Contender
76 76 76 228 76a
Green
Crop
84 84 84 252 84c
HAB
19
77 77 77 231 77b
Lipstican
84 84 84 252 84c
TOTAL
739 739 739 2,217 739
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2
1.85
0.93
Treatment
8
531.41
66.43
71.74**
2.59 3.89
Error
16
14.82
0.93
TOTAL
26
548.07
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 1.17%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
39
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Plant height at 30 DAP (cm) of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
9.34 8.93 9.48 27.75 9.25d
HAB
323 13.28 12.99 12.69 38.96 12.99a
BBL
10.82 11.27 11.14 33.23 11.08c
Torrent 12.93 11.84 12.93 37.70 12.57bc
HAB
63 12.97 12.59 12.59 38.15 12.72ab
Contender 11.88 12.45 10.27 34.60 11.53bc
Green
Crop
12.83 10.56 12.53 35.92 11.97abc
HAB
19 13.33 12.75 12.28 38.36 12.79ab
Lipstican 13.67 12.53 11.97 38.17 12.72ab
TOTAL 110.55 105.91 105.88 317
107
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 1.85
0.93
Treatment
8
531.41
66.43
71.74**
2.59 3.89
Error
16
14.81
0.93
TOTAL
26
548.07
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 1.17%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
40
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Plant height at 77 DAP (cm) of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 21.41 21.17 19.96 62.64 20.88bc
HAB
323 22.37 18.24 20.51 61.12 20.37c
BBL
24.17 25.14 21.20 70.51 23.50b
Torrent 25.39 26.73 29.74 81.86 27.29a
HAB
63 23.23 21.75 21.22 66.20 22.06bc
Contender 23.67 21.33 19.94 64.94 21.65bc
Green
Crop
28.99 25.82 28.12 82.93 27.64a
HAB
19 24.11 20.76 21.56 66.43 22.14bc
Lipstican 23.93 20.72 19.75 64.40 21.46bc
TOTAL 217.27
201.76 202 621.03
394.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 17.55
8.77
Treatment
8
172.11
21.51
8.40**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 40.98
2.56
TOTAL 26
230.639
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 6.96%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
41
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Number of branches per plant of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
2 2 2 6 2
HAB
323
4 3 2 9 3
BBL 2 2 2 6 2
Torrent 2 1 1 4 1
HAB
63 2 2 2 6 2
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 2 3 8 3
HAB
19 3 3 2 8 3
Lipstican
3 2 1 6 2
TOTAL 24 20 18 62 21
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
OF
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block
2 1.56
0.78
Treatment
8
7.33
0.92
2.87**
2.59 3.89
Error
16 5.11
0.32
TOTAL 26
14.00
** - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 24.22%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
42
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Number of flower cluster per plant of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 4 4 11 4
HAB
323
3 4 3 10 3
BBL 4 4 4 12 4
Torrent 3 4 4 11 4
HAB
63 4 3 3 10 3
Contender
3 4 3 10 3
Green
Crop
3 4 3 10 3
HAB
19 3 3 3 9 3
Lipstican
4 4 3 11 4
TOTAL
30 34 30 94 31
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2 1.19
0.59
Variety
8 2.07
0.26
1.19ns
2.59 3.89
Error
16 3.48 0.22
TOTAL 26 6.74
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 13.40 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
43
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Number of flower cluster per plant of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
4 3 3 10 3
HAB
323
4 4 3 11 4
BBL 3 3 3 9 3
Torrent
3 3 3 9 3
HAB
63
3 3 3 9 3
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 3 4 11 3
HAB
19
4 3 3 10 3
Lipstican
3 3 3 9 3
TOTAL
30 28 28 86 28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 % 0.01
Block
2 0.30
0.14
Variety
8 1.41
0.18
1.19ns
2.59 3.89
Error
16 2.37 0.15
TOTAL 26 4.07
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.08 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
44
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Number of Pod per cluster plant of nine bush snap varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 3 2 8 3
HAB
323
4 3 3 10 3
BBL 2 2 2 6 2
Torrent 3 2 3 8 3
HAB
63 3 3 3 9 3
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 2 2 7 2
HAB
19 2 3 3 8 3
Lipstican
2 3 2 7 2
TOTAL
25 24 23 72 24
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
BLOCK 2 0.22
0.11
Variety 8
4.00
0.50
2.12ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
3.78
0.24
TOTAL 26 8.00
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 18.22
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
45
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Number of pod cluster per plant of nine bush snap varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
3 3 3 9 3
HAB
323
3 4 3 10 3
BBL 4 4 3 11 4
Torrent 3 3 4 10 3
HAB
63 4 3 3 10 3
Contender
3 3 3 9 3
Green
Crop
3 4 3 10 3
HAB
19 4 3 3 10 3
Lipstican
3 3 3 9 3
TOTAL
30 30 28 88 28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.30
0.15
Variety 8
1.19
0.15
0.64ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
3.70
0.23
TOTAL 26 5.19
ns - Not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 14.76 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
46
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Number of seeds per pod of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
6 5 5 16 5b
HAB
323
6 6 6 18 6a
BBL 5 5 5 15 5b
Torrent 5 5 5 15 5b
HAB
63 5 6 5 16 5b
Contender
5 5 4 14 5b
Green
Crop
5 5 5 15 5b
HAB
19 5 6 6 17 6a
Lipstican
4 4 4 12 4b
TOTAL
46 47 45 138 46
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.22
0.11
Variety 8
8.00
1.00
6.55**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
2.44
0.15
TOTAL 26
10.67
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 7.65%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
47
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Weight of 200 seeds of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
50 55 45 150
50.00ef
HAB
323
50 45 45 140
46.67fg
BBL
60 55 55 170
56.67d
Torrent 60 60 60 180
60.00d
HAB
63 45 45 45 135
45.00g
Contender
90 90 80 260
86.67b
Green
Crop
85 80 80 245
81.67c
HAB
19 50 55 50 155
51.67e
Lipstican 115 115 110 340
113.33a
TOTAL
605 600 570 1775
591.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
79.63
39.82
Variety 8
12935.19
1616.90
214.92**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
120.37
7.52
TOTAL 26
13135.19
* * - Highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 4.17%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
48
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Seed length of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 12.80 12.70 12.20 37.70 12.57cd
HAB
323 12.50 13.00 11.80 37.30 12.43cd
BBL
14.70 13.90 14.40 43.00 14.33b
Torrent 13.00 13.70 13.00 39.70 13.23c
HAB
63 12.60 11.80 11.90 36.30 12.10d
Contender 17.10 16.80 17.00 50.90 17.00a
Green
Crop
16.10 14.30 14.80 45.20 15.07b
HAB
19 11.80 12.80 12.80 37.40 12.47cd
Lipstican 16.90 17.40 16.50 50.80 16.93a
TOTAL
127.50 126.40 124.40 378.30 126.13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.55
0.27
Variety 8
89.13
11.14
41.80
2.59 3.89
Error 16
4.26
0.27
TOTAL 26
93.95
* * - Highly Significant Coefficient of Variance = 3.68 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
49
APPENDIX TABLE 17. Seed width of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
5.40 5.20 5.30 15.90 5.30c
HAB
323 4.90 5.20 5.80 15.90 5.30c
BBL
5.20 5.20 5.50 15.90 5.30c
Torrent 5.80 5.60 5.50 16.90 5.63c
HAB
63 5.10 5.00 5.10 15.20 5.07c
Contender
6.70 6.80 6.10 19.60 6.53b
Green
Crop
7.60 6.30 6.10 20.00
6.67ab
HAB
19 5.60 5.40 5.30 16.30 5.43c
Lipstican 7.10 7.40 7.10 21.60 7.20a
TOTAL
53.40 52.10 54.8 160.3 52.43
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.16
0.08
Variety 8
14.08
1.76
13.33**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
2.11
0.13
TOTAL 26
16.35
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 6.24%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
50
APPENDIX TABLE 18. Percentage pod set of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 77.78 90.00 82.76 250.54 83.51
HAB
323 90..00 85.71 84.38 260.09 86.70
BBL
77.42 76.67 79.31 233.40 77.80
Torrent 82.35 82.76 93.55 258.70 86.22
HAB
63 96.88 84.85 87.10 268.83 89.61
Contender 78.79 78.13 75.76 232.70 77.57
Green
Crop
86.21 64.71 60.00 210.92 70.31
HAB
19 66.67 93.33 84.85 244.85 81.60
Lipstican 79.19 89.29 73.33 236.81 78.99
TOTAL
735.29 745.45 641.73 2196.84 732.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
33.41
16.71
Variety 8
823.23
102.90
1.47ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
1122.51
70.15
TOTAL 26
1979.15
ns - not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 10.27%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
51
APPENDIX TABLE 19. Number of marketable seed per 10m2 of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark 1805 1860 1810 5475 1825
HAB
323 3433 3304 2824 9561 3187
BBL
1736 1760 1911 5407 1802
Torrent 881 2053 1712 4646 1549
HAB
63 2882 2888 2832 8602 2867
Contender 1644 1626 1423 4693 1564
Green
Crop
1860 1405 1618 4883 1628
HAB
19 3056 3223 2659 8918 2973
Lipstican 1548 1514 1544 4606 1535
TOTAL
18845 19689 19765 58299 19433
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
92235.85
46117.93
Variety 8
11486697.63 1435837.20
19.89**
2.59 3.89
Error
16
1155140.82 72196.30
TOTAL 26
12734074.30
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.77%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
52
APPENDIX TABLE 20. Weight of marketable seed per plot 10m2 of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.55 0.50 0.46 1.51 0.50d
HAB
323 0.79 0.77 0.64 2.20 0.73b
BBL
0.53 0.58 0.53 1.64 0.55cd
Torrent 0.33 0.65 0.52 1.50 0.50d
HAB
63 0.69 0.73 0.70 2.12 0.71b
Contender
0.76 0.72 0.60 2.08 0.69bc
Green
Crop
0.87 0.61 0.70 2.18 0.73b
HAB
19 0.86 0.91 0.71 2.48 0.83ab
Lipstican 0.95 0.89 0.90 2.74 0.91a
TOTAL
6.33 6.29 5.75 18.51 6.15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.03
0.01
Variety
8
0.49
0.06
8.24**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.12
0.01
TOTAL 26 0.63
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.6 %
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
53
APPENDIX TABLE 21. Number of non-marketable seeds per 10 m2 of nine bush snap
bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
348 478 502 1328 443a
HAB
323 510 377 428 1315 438a
BBL
297 354 218 869 290ab
Torrent 401 141 496 1038
346ab
HAB
63 504 436 384 1324 441a
Contender
501 332 289 1122
374ab
Green
Crop
278 204 170 652 217bc
HAB
19 304 310 191 805 268abc
Lipstican
163 124 78 365 122c
TOTAL
3306 2747 2756 8809 2936
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
22407.41
11203.70
Variety 8
301315.85
37664.48
4.70**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
128275.26
8017.20
TOTAL 26
451998.52
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 21.42%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
54
APPENDIX TABLE 22. Weight of non-marketable seed per plot 10m2 (kg) of nine bush
snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.08 0.11 0.09 0.28 0.093a
HAB
323
0.08 0.06 0.07 0.21
0.070abc
BBL 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.17
0.057bc
Torrent
0.10 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.050c
HAB
63
0.08 0.07 0.05 0.20
0.067abc
Contender
0.12 0.08 0.06 0.26
0.087ab
Green
Crop
0.08 0.05 0.04 0.17
0.057bc
HAB
19
0.06 0.04 0.04 0.14 0.047c
Lipstican
0.08 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.047c
TOTAL
0.74 0.54 0.44 1.72 0.573
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.01
0.00
Variety 8 0.01
0.00
2.85*
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.01
0.00
TOTAL 26 0.02
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 27.421%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
55
APPENDIX TABLE 23. Total seed yield per 10m2 (kg) of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.63 0.61 0.55 1.79 0.60c
HAB
323 0.87 0.83 0.71 2.41 0.80b
BBL
0.59 0.65 0.57 1.81 0.60c
Torrent 0.43 0.68 0.54 1.65 0.55c
HAB
63 0.77 0.74 0.75 2.26 0.75b
Contender
0.88 0.80 0.66 2.34 0.78b
Green
Crop
0.95 0.66 0.74 2.35 0.78b
HAB
19 0.92 0.97 0.75 2.64 0.88ab
Lipstican 1.03 0.92 0.93 2.88 0.96a
TOTAL
7.07 6.86 6.20 20.13 6.70
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.05
0.02
Variety 8 0.45
0.06
8.18**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.11
0.01
TOTAL 26 0.60
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 11.15%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
56
APPENDIX TABLE 24. Computed seed yield per hectare (kg) of nine bush snap bean
varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
630 610 550 1790
596.67c
HAB
323 870 830 710 2410
803.33b
BBL
590 650 570 1810
603.33c
Torrent 430 680 540 1650
550.00c
HAB
63 770 740 750 2260
753.33b
Contender
880 800 660 2340
780.00b
Green
Crop
950 660 740 2350
783.33b
HAB
19 920 970 750 2640
880.67ab
Lipstican 1030 920 930 2880
960.00a
TOTAL
7070 6860 6200 20130
6710.66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
45800.00
22900.00
Variety 8
452133.33
56516.67
8.18**
2.59 3.89
Error 16
110533.33
6908.33
TOTAL 26
608466.67
** - highly Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 11.15%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
57
APPENDIX TABLE 25. Harvest index of nine bush snap bean varieties
BLOCK
VARIETY
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Landmark
0.27 0.23 0.21 0.71 0.24
HAB
323 0.26 0.20 0.25 0.71 0.24
BBL
0.21 0.23 0.24 0.68 0.23
Torrent 0.23 0.32 0.24 0.79 0.26
HAB
63 0.33 0.26 0.28 0.87 0.29
Contender
0.26 0.19 0.27 0.72 0.24
Green
Crop
0.31 0.29 0.20 0.80 0.27
HAB
19 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.75 0.25
Lipstican 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.81 0.27
TOTAL
2.35 2.27 2.19 6.81 2.29
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.00
0.00
Variety 8 0.01
0.00
.89ns
2.59 3.89
Error 16
0.02
0.00
TOTAL 26 0.03
ns – not Significant
Coefficient of Variance = 14.81%
Agronomic Characters Of Bush Snap Bean Varieties Under Organic Production
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Wesley O. Dario. 2007
Document Outline
- Agronomic Characters of Bush Snap bean
Varieties Under Organic Production at La Trinidad, Benguet
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES