BIBLIOGRAPHY KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010. Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta
vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Percival B. Alipit, Ph.D
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Farm, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, and Benguet from January to March 2010 to identify the variety of sugar beet suited
under La Trinidad, Benguet condition and determine the organic fertilizer best for sugar beet
production in the locality.
Results revealed that there were no significant differences between the two varieties
tested on vegetative growth, root size and weight, non-marketable and marketable yield.
However, Detroit Amelioree had significantly higher computed marketable yield per hectare at
25.86 tons compared to Detroit Dark Red. Plants applied with either Siglat, chicken manure +
14-14-14 or NBEM had significantly higher marketable yield than those applied with BSU
compost.
No distinct differences were observed between the two varieties applied with the various
fertilizers in sugar content, skin and flesh color, and in market preference.
The highest return on investment at 139.26% was obtained from Detroit Amelioree
applied with Siglat( 2.17%N, 3.19% P2O5, 2.27% K2O ) organic fertilizer, thus growing this
variety and application of said fertilizer is desired for greater yield and profit.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………....
i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………
ii
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………......
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………..
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………………….
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………..
11
Percentage Emergence, Number of Leaves,
and Final Height at Harvest ……………………………………………….
11
Average Root Length, Diameter, and Weight ……………………………...
12
Non-marketable, Marketable, and Computed
Yield …………………………………………….……………………......
13
Sugar Content………………………………………………………………
15
Return on Investment……………………………………………………….
17
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION……………………. 19
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………...
20
APENDICES ……………………………………………………………………...
21
1
INTRODUCTION
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) growing for sucrose production became successful
in the United States starting about 1870. Earlier attempts of sugar beet production were
not totally successful. Once a viable industry was established, sugar beets were grown in
26 states (Cattanach, 1991).
The Goosefoot or Pigweed Family (Chenopodiaceae) is composed of three
species with different growth habits. Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) belongs to the Crassa group,
Chard (Beta vulgaris L) to the Cicla group and spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.).
Sugar beet is grown predominantly in regions with temperate climates,
Mediterranean or Arid ones. Today, sugar consumption has been growing at roughly the
rates as world population growth (2% per year). There are substantial differences are
cultural in nature, but per capita consumption also is correlated with wealth and is
highest in Europe and lowest in China and Africa (Kaffa, 2000).
Beet has always been a vital source of energy enriched with nutrients and fiber.
It is biennial and available almost throughout the year. Be it the modified root itself or
chard like edible green leaves both are incredibly contributing to a healthy metabolism.
While Beta vulgaris is widely being relished in the form of salad with spicy and lemon
like flavor and pickles, the edible green leaves too are loaded with rich vitamin like
vitamin C, folate and betaine in large quantities. Vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
vitamin B6, and pantothenic acid are also present in small amounts. It also constitutes
traces of a-carotene. The crop is also known for being rich in nutrients (potassium, iron,
magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and copper) and small amounts of calcium sodium,
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
2
zinc, and selenium. As for the calorie, it contains calorific value of 43.0 per 100
gm edible portion. With regards to health benefits, it has been found useful in the
treatment of colon cancer and birth related defects. It is a natural cleanser which
removes toxins from the body and nourishes the bloodstream. Also useful in the
treatment of liver related dysfunctions like jaundice, cirrhosis, etc. beet juice is a good
source of energy and is essential for human body. It is not advisable to feed beet to
infants below six months old but it is of good use to women under menstruation.
(Cattanach, 1991).
In the Philippines, vegetable production contributes much to the economy. One
of the most important crops being especially in the high elevation is sugar beet. The
production of such crop provides better income to vegetable growers. It commands a
high price in the market. In the country, it is eaten as a vegetable food.
Sugar beet is mainly produced in Benguet and Mountain Province but there is
need to promote production of the crop on account of being high in economic and
nutritive value.
Varieties of sugar beet need to be tested in the locality and with the trend now of
practicing organic farming, organic fertilizers ought to be evaluated as to their effect on
sustaining crop growth and development.
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Farm, Benguet, State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from January to March 2010 to identify the variety of
sugar beet suited under La Trinidad, Benguet condition and determine the organic
fertilizer best for sugar beet production in the locality.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crop
Sugar beet is a hardy biennial vegetable that can be grown in temperate and
semi- temperate countries, depending of the variety. The crop produces a dense canopy
of leaves and large root in which sugar is stored. It has a cluster of dark-green leaves and
a top short stem called crown. Beneath the crown is the creamy-white cone shape root.
The elongated upper part of the root is called the beet. The root tapers down to form a
thin taproot, which extend up to 0.6 to 1.5 cm into the soil. The long taproot can obtain
water that lies far below the ground.
Root size, before dormancy, is dependent on a number of factors. The most
important of these include length of growing season, care of the growing crop, soil
fertility, and moisture. In Arizona, under normal growing condition, most plants will
attain a root size of 3/4 to 11/2 inches at crown. Under Oregon condition, most plants
will attain a root size of 3/8 to 3/4 inch. In commercial beet production, the root is
harvested after the first growing season, when the root is at maximum size (1-2kg)
storage root whose dry mass is 15-20 % sucrose by weight. The beet root if not
harvested during its second growing season, the nutrients will be utilized for flowering
and seed production (Kaffa and Jackson, 2000).
Importance of Varietal Selection
Selection of a variety to be planted is one of the most important decisions that
commercial vegetable growers make each season considering the yield performance.
The variety has the potential to produce crops at least equivalent to those already grown.
It must also perform well under wide range of environmental conditions usually
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
4
encountered on individual farms and must also have the characteristics desired by
packers, shippers, whole sellers, and consumers. Included among these qualities are size,
shape, color, flavor, and nutritional quality (Lorenz and Maynard, 1988).
Sunil (1990) mentioned that varietal evaluation is a process in crop breeding
program, which provide comparison of promising lines with the local check in order to
establish the superiority of the lines developed by breeders. He emphasized that it is
only through evaluation that breeders determine the performance of developed lines in
terms of yield, quality, adaptability, stress, and insect pests and diseases resistance.
To be successful crop growers, a farmer should have a good control of the
variety and the environment. A variety for example may have a potential for high yield
but if not provided with adequate water and fertilizer or weeds are not controlled, it will
not give high yield. The expression of the genetic potential of a variety is controlled over
a wide range of environmental conditions (Wallace, 1969).
On the other hand, quality is defined as any of the features that make something
excellent or superior (Kader, 1985). For fresh horticultural commodities, quality is a
combination of characteristics attributes and properties that give the commodity value to
humans for food (fruits and vegetables) and enjoyment. Producers are concerned that
their commodities have good appearance and few visual defects but for them useful
cultivars must score high on yield, disease resistance, ease of harvest, and shipping
quality. To receiver’s and market distributors, appearance quality is most important.
They are also keenly interested on firmness and long storage life. Consumers consider
good quality of fruits and vegetables to be presentable, firm and offer good flavor and
nutritive value. Consumers buy based on appearance and satisfaction, purchases are
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
5
dependent upon good quality. Finally, varieties can be evaluated according to the
different quality factors namely: appearance; texture; flavor; nutritive value; and safety
(Kader, 1985).
Edmund and Andrews (1957) said that varieties differ in productivity as an
expression of their hereditary genes influence by the environment. The variety best
adapted to the environment reflects the high yield potential as mentioned by Villareal
(1969). The importance of varietal trial is to evaluate the yield of new varieties in areas
with specific climatic conditions. Each cultivar has its own characteristics and yield
potential.
Selection of a cultivar for production should be based on the optimal yield and
profit that can be obtained. According to Wolford and Banks (2005), the market
availability of seeds and equipment resources that are available to the growers and
cultural conditions of the cite, should be taken into considerations.
Bautista and Mabesa (1969) added that the success in vegetable production is
greatly affected by the farmers’ control of the varieties and environment. Most of the
time, right varieties selected would minimize the problems related to water and fertilizer
management. While growing, the wrong variety would probably cause insect pests and
disease infestation/infection resulting to crop failure.
On the other hand, Del Rosario (1977) concluded that picking the right variety
minimize problems associated with water and fertilizer management.
Organic Fertilizer
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
6
Organic fertilizer comes from manures of animals like pig, chicken, carabao,
cow, horse, and while leaves of plants, rice straw, corn stover, rice hull, etc., are plant
matter.
The use of organic fertilizer results in better soil structure and soils with
sufficient amount of organic matter retain more water for plant use.
Pig and poultry manure are the common sources of organic fertilizer which
provides needed nutrients to plant in small quantity. According to estimates, the manure
produced by 20-30 pigs a year could produce the same result as one ton of ammonium
sulfate.
Organic fertilizer/organic manure are generally the most valuable soil
conditioner. The materials from organic fertilizer generally have low content of nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) but they also supply other essential
micronutrients. As soil conditioners, organic fertilizer helps prevent soil erosion,
crushing and cracking of soil. They retain soil humidity and improved the internal
drainage of the soil (Sangatanan, 2000).
Nitrogen and other nutrient elements contained in organic fertilizer are released
slowly. Thus, their continuous application helps build up the soil, particularly when this
is done for over a long period of time.
Organic fertilizer such as compost, animal manure, azolla, ipil-ipil, industrial
wastes, and oil seed meals can be used in place of chemical fertilizer. Organic fertilizer
should serve as a supplement to inorganic fertilizer. It improves the physical make-up of
the soil making it improves and rich in organic matter.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
7
Effect of Organic Fertilizer
The color of the soil changes from light to dark. It promotes good physical
condition. The organic matter makes the soil friable and loose, resulting in the better soil
aeration and drainage, and making it easier for the roots to grow. In sandy soils, the
organic matter may help bind together the sand particles and increased its water holding
capacity. The physical condition of organic matter itself is also ideal for mixing it with
chemical fertilizer before application. The cation exchange capacity of the soil is
increased and its nutrient availability is enhanced with the application of organic acids in
humus that aids in extracting plant nutrients from mineral soil. Organic materials supply
energy and building constituents for the multiplication of beneficial soil micro-
organisms (Sangatanan, 2000).
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in the study were sugar beet seeds, farm tools, inorganic and
organic fertilizers, Vernier caliper and weighing scale.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out in a factorial
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The treatments were
as follows:
Factor A
Variety
V1
Detroit Dark Red
V2
Detroit Amelioree
Factor B
Organic Fertilizer
O1
Chicken dung - 6.0t/ha + 14-14-
14- 740 kg/ha (farmers’ application practice)
O2
Siglat (2.17%N, 3.19%P205,2.27%k20)-3.0t/ha
O3
NBEM (2.8% N,3.95%P205,3.66%K20)-3.0t/ha
O4
BSU compost (2.0%N,2.7%P205,2.4%K20) – 3.0t/ha
Land preparation. An area of 160 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided
into four blocks. Each block was further divided into eight plots with a dimension of 1m
x 5m each.
Soil analysis. Soil samples were taken before the application of fertilizer for
analysis at the soils laboratory in Baguio City.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
9
Fertilizer application and planting. The organic fertilizers described in the
treatments were applied after preparing the area and mixed thoroughly with the soil.
Two seeds were sown in furrows at a distance of 10 cm between hills and 10 cm
between rows. Thinning was done to retain one plant per hill when the plants developed
four leaves.
Care and maintenance. Irrigation was done after sowing and at three days
interval until plant establishment and at five days interval thereafter. All the other
cultural practices required by the crop were employed.
Data gathered
The data gathered and subjected to variance and mean separation test by
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were as follows:
1. Percentage emergence. This was computed using the formula:
Emergence (%) = Number of seedlings emerged ÷Number of seeds sown x 100
2. Average number of leaves per plant. Leaves of ten sample plants were
counted at harvest.
3.
Final height of plants at harvest (cm). Ten sample plants were measured
from the base of the leaf petioles to the tip of the leaves at harvest.
4.
Root length (cm). The length of ten sample roots were measured using a
foot rule from the base to the tip of the root.
5.
Root diameter (cm). The diameter of ten sample roots were measured at
the mid-section with a vernier caliper.
6. Average root weight (cm). Ten randomly selected roots were weighed
and their weight was divided by ten.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
10
7. Non-marketable yield (kg). This was the weight of rotten, malformed and
small roots.
8.
Marketable yield (kg). This was the weight of saleable roots without
defects.
9.
Computed yield (t/ha). The marketable yield per plot was converted to
tons per hectare by multiplying the marketable yield by 2,000 which is the number of
1x5 m plot per hectare and divided by 1000 which is the weight of one ton.
10.
Market preference. Traders in the market were asked on which variety is
more saleable.
11. Sugar content (Percentage). The sugar content of sample storage roots was
taken using a refractometer.
12. Skin and flesh color. This was determined visually.
13. Economic analysis. All the cost of inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, labor and
others were recorded and so with the sales to compute the profit. The return on
investment (ROI) was taken using the formula:
Gross Income – Total Expenses
ROI (%) = _____________________________________________ x 100
Total Expenses
14. Documentation of the study. A pictures was taken on root yield.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Percentage Emergence, Number of Leaves, and Final Height
Effect of variety. Table 1 shows the emergence percentage number of leaves per
plant, and final height at harvest. There were no significant differences between the two
varieties tested on these parameters. This means that the both varieties have similar
vegetative characteristics.
Effect of organic fertilizer. There were no significant differences in the
emergence percentage, number of leaves per plant, and final height at harvest as affected
by the fertilizers applied (Table 1)
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction between variety and
organic fertilizers on the emergence percentage, number of leaves per plot, and final
height.
Table 1. Percentage emergence, average number of leaves per plant, and final height
EMERGENCE NUMBER OF FINAL
TREATMENT
(%)
LEAVES
HEIGHT
(cm)
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
95.89a
18.25a
48.15a
Detriot Amelioree
96.43a
18.31a
48.04a
Organic Fertilizer
Chicken dung+14-14-14
95.65a
18.58a
48.48a
Siglat
97.21a
18.34a
48.14a
NBEM
97.36a
18.16a
48.07a
BSU compost
94.41a
18.04a
47.71a
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level
by DMRT
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
12
Average Root Length, Diameter, and Weight
Effect of variety. There were no significant differences between the two varieties
on root length, diameter, and weight as presented in Table 2. Nevertheless, Detroit
Amelioree tended to have longer, wider, and heavier root weight.
Effect of organic fertilizer. Table 2 shows that there were no significant
differences on root size and weight. However, application of Siglat tended to increase
root length, diameter, and weight.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effect between variety
and organic fertilizer on the root length, diameter, and average weight.
Table 2. Root length, diameter, and average weight
TREATMENT
LENGTH
DIAMETER WEIGHT
(cm)
(cm)
(g)
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
5.21a
5.12a
235.93a
Detroit Amelioree
5.22a
5.14a
242.31a
Organic fertilizer
Chicken dung + 14-14-14
5.18a
5.07a
239.00a
Siglat
5.47a
5.36a
243.63a
NBEM
5.19a
5.10a
237.13a
BSU compost
5.05a
4.98a
236.7a
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
13
Non-marketable, Marketable,
and Computed yield
Table 3. Non-marketable, marketable, and computed yield
NON-MARKETABLE MARKETABLE COMPUTED
TREATMENTS
(Kg/ 1x 5m plot)
(Kg/ 1x 5m plot)
YIELD
(T/Ha)
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
1.73a
12.47a
24.59b
Detroit Amelioree
1.74a
12.95a
25.86a
Organic fertilizer
Farmer’s practice
1.76a
12.84a
25.41b
Siglat
1.50a
13.32a
26.27a
NBEM
1.62a
12.61ab
25.21ab
BSU compost 2.04a
12.06b
24.01b
In column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level
by DMRT
Effect of variety. Table 3 shows that there were no significant differences
between the two varieties tested on the non-marketable and marketable yield. However,
Detroit Amelioree had significantly higher computed marketable yield per hectare
compared to Detroit Dark Red.
Effect of organic fertilizer. No significant differences were observed on the non-
marketable root yield as affected by the fertilizer treatments as shown in Table 3. The
highest marketable yield obtained from the application of Siglat was comparable to those
with the application of chicken dung+14-14-14 or NBEM but significantly higher than that
with the application of BSU compost (Table 3). On the other hand, computed marketable
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
14
yield was higher with the application of Siglat comparable to that with the application of
NBEM but significantly higher than those with the application of the rest of the fertilizers
as shown in Table 3.
Interaction effect. Figure 1 shows that Detroit Amelioree applied with chickendung
+ 14-14-14 had the highest computed marketable yield comparable to the yield obtained
from the same variety and applied with either Siglat or NBEM and the yield from the
Detroit Dark Red and applied with Siglat or NBEM but significantly higher than the yield
from the other treatment combinations.
Skin and Flesh Color
The skin and the flesh of the roots regardless of the variety and fertilizer applied
were similar having purple color.
Market Preference
The marketable roots from the varieties applied with any of the fertilizers were
saleable in the market.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
15
Figure 1. Computed marketable yield as affected by variety and organic fertilizer
(bars with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT)
Sugar Content
Effect of variety. The sugar content did not differ significantly between the two
test varieties ranging from 9.4 to 9.5% as shown in Table 4.
Effect of the of oganic fertilizer. There were no significant differences in the
sugar content of the roots as affected by the fertilizer applied Table 4 .
Interaction Effect. No significant interaction effects were observed on the sugar
content.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
16
Chicken dung and 14-14-14 Siglat
NBEM
BSU compost
Roots harvested from Detroit Dark Red applied with different fertilizers
Chicken dung and 14-14-14
Siglat
NBEM
BSU compost
Roots harvested from Detroit Amelioree applied with different fertilizers
Figure 2.Sample roots harvested from sugar beet varieties applied with different
fertilizers.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
17
Table 4. Sugar content
TREATMENT PERCENTAGE
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
9.52
Detroit Ameloiree
9.42
Organic fertilizer
Chicken dung+14-14-14
9.40
Siglat
9.54
NBEM
9.53
BSU compost
9.42
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Economic Analysis
Table 6 shows that the highest return on investment (ROI) was obtained from
Detroit Amelioree applied with Siglat at 139.26% followed by Detroit Dark Red applied
with Siglat 130.41%, while the lowest ROI at 96.54% was taken from Detroit Dark Red
applied with chicken dung and 14-14-14.
Soil Analysis
The soil in the experiment area had an analysis of 1.0 % organic matter, 162 ppm
phosphorus, and 174 pmm potassium.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
18
Table 5. Return on Investment (ROI)
Detroit Dark Red
Detroit Amelioree
PERTICULARS
Chiken dung
Sigat
N-BEM
BSU
Chiken dung
Siglat
N-BEM
BSU
+14-14-14
Compost +14-14-14
Compost
Marketable Yield
48.15
52.04
50.03
47.07
54.06
54.04
50.058
47.080
(kg/per 20 m2)
Sales(Php)
1,059.3
1,144.88 1,100.66 1,035.54
1,189.32
1,188.88 1,101.1
1,033.76
Expenses (Php):
Labor
375
375
375
375
375
375
375
375
Seeds
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
14-14-14
39.96
-
-
-
39.96
-
-
-
Chicken Dung
28.80
-
-
-
28.80
-
-
-
Organic Fertilizer
-
27
27
27
-
27
27
27
Gasoline
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
Transport
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
Total Expenses (Php)
538.65
496.89
496.89
496.89
538.95
496.89
496.89
496.89
Net Profit (Php)
520.65
647.99
603.77
538.65
650.37
691.99
604.21
536.87
ROI (%)
96.54
130.41
121.51
108.40
120.67
139.26
121.60
108.04
Rank
8
2
4
6
5
1
3
7
Note: The selling price was 22 pesos per kilogram
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition.
KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
19
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Farm, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from January to March, 2010 to identify the variety of
sugar beet suited under La Trinidad, Benguet condition and to determine the organic
fertilizer best for sugar beet production in the locality.
Results showed that there were no significant differences between the two
varieties as well as the fertilizers used on the growth and yield components. However,
Detriot Amelioree significantly had higher computed marketable yield at 25.86 t/ha and
application of Siglat, NBEM or following the farmers fertilizers application practice of
using chicken dung + 14-14-14 significantly effected higher marketable yield. Sugar
content did not significantly vary as affected by variety or fertilizer. Likwise, root, skin
and flesh color, and market preference were similar.
The highest return on investment (ROI) at 139.26 % was obtained from Detroit
Amelioree and application of Siglat (2.17% N, 3.19% P2O5, 2.27% K2O).
Conclusion
Based from the results of the study, it is concluded that Detroit Amelioree applied
with Siglat had the highest marketable yield and from which the highest ROI was
derived.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended that Detroit Amelioree be grown in the locality with
the application of Siglat to improve sugar beet production.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
20
LITERATURE CITED
BAUTISTA, O.K. and R.C. MABESA. 1969. Vegetable Production. UPLB, Los Baños,
Laguna. P. 62.
CATTANACH, A.B. 1991. Sugar beet production cost and practices in Southern Idaho.
Univ. of Idaho, College of Agriculture. Cooperative Extension Service. Current
Information Series No. 514.
DEL ROSARIO, D.A. 1977. Variety-environment and their interaction. The Interstate
Printers and Publ. Corp. p.209.
EDMUND, J.R. and F.S. ANDREWS. 1957. Fundamentals of Horticulture. New York:
McGraw Hill Co. P.
KADER, A.A. 1985. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. Regents of the
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
KAFFA, S. and F. JACKSON. 2000. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from Sugar beet.
vcdavis/sbchap. Html.
LORENZ, A. and R.N. MAYNARD. 1988. Knots Handbook for Vegetable Growers.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. P. 30.
SANGATANAN, R.L. 2000. Practical Guide to Organic Gardening in the Philippines.
Busy Book Distributors. Quezon City.
SUNIL, K.R. 1990. Varietal evaluation of promising lines and path coefficient analysis in
pole snap beans. MS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-65.
VILLAREAL, R.L. 1969. Vegetable Training Manual. UPCA, College, Los Baños,
Laguna. P. 127.
WALLACE, P.D. 1969. Genetics, environment and plant responses. In: Vegetable
Training Manual (R.L. Villareal and PD. Wallace eds.). UPCA, College, Los
Banos, Laguna. P. 12.
WOLFORD, R. and D. BANKS. 2005. Watch your garden grow. Water melon. Univ. Of
Illinois Extension. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from http://w.w.w.vga.edu.!
vegetable/watermelon#plantchar#plantchar.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
21
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Percentage emergence
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL MEAN
V1O1
93.41
96.14
95.06
96.42
381.57
95.39
O2
97.22
95.40
96.47
96.40
385.49
96.37
O3
98.38
97.76
98.29 96.91 391.33
97.83
O4
94.22
91.20
92.36
98.04
375.82
93.96
Sub-total
383.23
380.05 382.18 387.77 1534.21
95.89
V2O1
91.66
96.32
96.80
98.81
383.59
95.89
O2
98.80
97.16
97.66
98.60
392.22
98.06
O3
98.04
96.19
97.07
96.26
387.56
96.89
O4
96.81
94.35
95.34
92.97
379.47
94.87
Sub-total
392.31
384.02 386.87 386.64 1542.84
96.43
TOTAL
775.54
764.07 769.05 7774.41 3077.5
96.16
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
22
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
DARK RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 381.57
393.59
765.16
95.65
+14-14-14
Siglat
385.49
392.22
777.71
97.21
NBEM
391.33
387.56
777.89
97.36
BSU compost
375.82
379.59
755.29
94.41
TOTAL 1534.21 1542.84 3077.05
MEAN
95.00
96.43
96.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01
FREEDOM
Replication
3
1.818
0.606
Factor A
1
3.525
3525
1.0918 ns
4.26
7.82
Factor B
3
43.190
14.397 4.4597*
3.03
4.72
A x B
3
9.964
3.321
1.0288 ns
3.03
4.72
Error
21
77.477
3.228
TOTAL
31
134.155
*=Significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 1.87
ns =Not significant
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
23
Appendix Table 2. Average number of leaves per plant
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL MEAN
V1O1
18.00
18.90
19.00 19.00
74.50
18.63
O2
17.90
18.70
19.10 18.20
73.90
18.48
O3
18.00
18.30
18.20 18.30
72.80
18.20
O4
17.90
18.60
16.40 17.90
70.80
17.70
Sub-total
61.08
74.04
72.07 73.04
292.0
18.25
V2O1
18.40
18.90
18.20 18.60
74.10
18.53
O2
18.70
18.60
16.90 18.60
72.80
18.20
O3
17.80
18.10
18.10 18.50
72.50
18.13
O4
18.50
18.40
18.20 18.40
73.03
18.25
Subtotal
73.34
74.00
71.04 74.01 292.4
18.27
TOTAL
134.12 148.04
143.11 147.05 584.4
18.26
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
24
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 74.50 74.10 148.06 18.57
+14-14-14
Siglat
73.90
72.80 146.07 18.33
NBEM
72.80
72.50
145.03 18.16
BSU compost
70.80
73.03
143.08 17.98
TOTAL 292.00 292.04 584.04
MEAN 18.25 18.27 18.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01
FREEDOM
Replication
3
1.818
0.606
Factor A
1 0.025
0.025
0.11 ns
4.26
8.02
Factor B
3
1.303
0.434
1.83 ns
3.07
4.87
A x B
3
1.068
0.356
1.49 ns
3.07
4.87
Error
21
4.999
0.238
TOTAL
31
9.215
ns =Not significant Coefficient of variation (%) = 2.98
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
25
Appendix 3. Final height at harvest (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
V1O1
46.50
48.47
49.10
48.62
192.69
48.17
O2
47.57
48.34
47.46
48.38
191.75
47.14
O3
53.15
47.00
47.60
47.66
195.41
48.85
O4
47.76
46.10
48.30
48.45
190.61
47.65
Sub-total
194.98
189.91
192.46 193.11
770.46
48.15
V2O1
48.21
48.41
48.79
49.76
195.17
48.79
O2
48.19
47.76
48.37
49.01
193.33
48.33
O3
48.51
48.01
48.06
44.54
189.12
47.28
O4
48.05
47.60
48.16
47.28
191.09
47.77
Sub-total 192.96
191.78
193.38 190.59
768.71
48.04
TOTAL 387.94 381.69 385.84 383.07 1539.17 48.09
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
26
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELOREE
Chicken dung 162.69 195.17 387.86 48.48
+14-14-14
Siglat 191.75 193.33 385.08 48.13
NBEM 195.41 189.12 384.53 48.06
BSU compost 190.61 191.09 381.07 47.71
TOTAL 770.46 768.71 1539.17
MEAN 48.15 48.01 48.09
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION OF SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Replication 3 1.818 0.606
Factor A 1 0.025 0.025 0.11ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B 3 0.024 0.434 1.83ns 3.07 4.87
A x B 3 1.068 0.356 1.49ns 3.07 4.87
Error 21 2.057 2.057
TOTAL 31 9.215
ns=Not significant Coefficient of variation(%)=2.98
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
27
Appendix 4. Average root length (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
V1O1
4.28
5.74
5.10
4.90
20.56
5.14
O2
4.75
6.00
5.16
5.90
21.81
5.42
O3
5.10
5.00
4.98
5.14
20.22
5.06
O4
4.98
5.52
5.24
5.00
20.74
5.19
Sub-total
19.11
22.26
20.48
20.94
83.33
5.21
V2O1
4.76
5.74
5.41
4.98
20.89
5.22
O2
5.96
5.73
4.91
5.16
21.76
5.44
O3
5.33
5.62
4.81
5.52
21.28
5.32
O4
4.91
5.00
4.73
4.98
19.62
4.91
Sub-total 20.96
22.09
19.86
20.64
83.55
5.22
TOTAL 40.07 44.35 40.08 41.58 166.88 5.21
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
28
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 20.56 20.89 41.45 5.18
+14-14-14
Siglat 21.81 21.76 43.57 5.44
NBEM 20.22 21.28 41.05 5.18
BSU compost 20.74 19.62 40.36 5.04
TOTAL 83.33 83.55 166.88
MEAN 5.21 5.22 5.22
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
1.259
0.420
Factor A
1
0.002
0.002 0.01ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
0.674
0.225 2.07ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
0.310
0.103 0.95ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
2.276
0.108
TOTAL 31 4.520
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 6.31
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
29
Appendix 5. Average root diameter (cm)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
4.75
5.60
4.99
4.76
20.10
5.03
O2
4.65
5.92
5.10
5.80
21.47
5.37
O3
4.99
4.98
4.82
5.10
19.89
4.97
O4
4.86
5.45
5.13
4.96
20.40
5.10
Sub-total
19.25
21.95
20.04
20.62
81.86
5.12
V2O1
4.62
5.61
5.30
4.94
20.47
5.12
O2
5.80
5.64
4.48
5.12
21.44
5.36
O3
5.20
5.55
4.72
5.40
20.87
5.22
O4
4.82
4.96
4.65
4.97
19.40
4.85
Sub-total 20.44
21.76
22.55
20.43
82.18
5.14
TOTAL 39.69 43.71 42.59 41.05 164.04 5.13
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
30
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chiken dung 20.10 20.47 40.57 5.07
+14-14-14
Siglat 21.47 21.44 42.91 5.36
NBEM 19.89 20.87 40.76 5.09
BSU compost 20.40 19.40 39.08 4.97
TOTAL 81.86 82.18 164.04
MEAN 5.21 5.14 5.13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
1.381 0.460
Factor A
1
0.003 0.003 0.03ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
0.666 0.222 2.34ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
0.259 0.086 0.91ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
1.990 0.0095
TOTAL 31 4.229
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 6.00
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
31
Appendix 6. Average root weight (g)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
234.0
248.0
239.0
214.0
935.0
233.57
O2
208.0
251.0
249.0
250.0
958.0
239.50
O3
238.0
230.0
216.0
248.0
932.0
233.00
O4
227.0
244.0
241.0
241.0
950.0
237.50
Sub-total
907.0
973.0
945.0
953.0
3775
235.93
V2O1
244.0
248.0
248.0
237.0
977.0
244.25
O2
239.0
253.0
249.0
250.0
991.0
247.75
O3
239.0
248.0
237.0
241.0
965.0
241.25
O4
237.0
240.0
232.0
235.0
944.0
236.00
Sub-total 959.0
989.0
966.0
936.0
3877
242.03
TOTAL 1866 1962 1911 1889 7652 239.12
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
32
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 935 977 1912 239
+14-14-14
Siglat 958 991 1949 243.62
NBEM 932 965 1897 237.12
BSU compost 950 944 1894 236.74
TOTAL 3775 3877 7652
MEAN 235.93 242.03 239.12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
531.750 177.250
Factor A
1
325.124 235.275 2.84ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
239.250 79.750 0.70ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
172.125 57.375 0.50ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
2405.250 114.536
TOTAL 31 3673.500
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 4.48
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
33
Appendix 7. Sugar content (Brix)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
10
9.07
9.08
9.08
37.23
9.31
O2
9.08
10.01
9.08
10
38.17
9.54
O3
10.03 10
9.04
9.06
38.13
9.53
O4
9.06
9.08
10
10
38.14
9.54
Sub-total 38.17 38.16 37.02 38.14 151.67 9.47
V2O1 9.09 9.09 9.06 10 37.24 9.31
O2 10.03 9.05 10 9.07 38.15 9.53
O3 9.05 9.08 10 10 38.13 9.53
O4 9.08 9.09 9.06 10 37.23 9.42
Sub-total 37.25 36.31 38.12 39.07 150.75 9.42
TOTAL 75.42 74.47 75.14 77.21 302.42 9.45
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
34
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 37.23 37.24 74.47 9.31
+14-14-14
Siglat 38.17 38.15 76.32 9.54
NBEM 38.13 38.13 76.26 9.53
BSU compost 38.14 37.23 75.37 9.42
TOTAL 151.67 150.75 302.42
MEAN 9.47 9.42 9.45
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
2.170 0.423
Factor A
1
0.084 0.084
0.3144ns 4.26 7.82
Factor B
3
0.130 0.043
0.1618ns 3.03 4.72
A x B
3
0.083 0.028
0.1029ns 3.03 4.72
Error
21
6.416 0.267
TOTAL 31 6.712
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 5.46
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
35
Appendix 8. Non-marketable yield (kg/1x5 m plot)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
1.50
2.35
1.60
1.50
6.95
1.74
O2
2.00 1.20
1.50
1.10
5.80
4.45
O3
1.75
1.90
1.30
1.40
6.35
1.59
O4
3.00
1.75
2.80
1.00
8.55
2.14
Sub-total 8.25 7.02 7.02 5 27.65 1.73
V2O1 1.75 1.30 2.20 1.60 7.15 1.79
O2 1.50 1.15 1.75 1.80 6.20 1.55
O3 1.30 1.45 1.90 1.95 6.60 1.65
O4 2.00 2.10 2.50 1.30 7.90
Sub-total 6.55 6.00 8.35 39.07 27.85 1.74
TOTAL 14.08 13.02 15.37 77.21 55.5 1.73
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
36
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 6.95 7.15 14.01 1.76
+14-14-14
Siglat 5.80 6.20 12.00 1.50
NBEM 6.35 6.60 12.95 1.60
BSU compost 8.55 7.90 16.45 2.05
TOTAL 27.65 27.85 55.05
MEAN 1.73 1.74 1.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
1.270 0.423
Factor A
1
0.001 0.001
0.01ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
1.382 0.461
2.06ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
0.084 0.028
0.13ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
4.705 0.224
TOTAL 31 7.442
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 27.29
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
37
Appendix 9. Marketable yield (kg/1x5 m plot)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
11.00 12.50
11.65
13.00
48.15
12.04
O2
13.00 14.00
12.70
12.60
52.40
13.10
O3
12.50 11.90
12.10
12.80 50.30
12.58
O4
11.30
13.00
12.00
12.40
48.70
12.18
Sub-total 47.08 51.04 48.45 50.08 199.55 12.47
V2O1 14.00 13.75 12.85 14.00 54.60 13.65
O2 14.90 12.50 12.90 13.90 54.20 13.55
O3 12.75 12.75 12.30 12.75 50.55 12.64
O4 11.60 12.00 12.20 12.00 47.80 11.95
Sub-total 53.25 51.00 50.25 52.65 207.15 12.94
TOTAL 100.33 102.04 98.07 102.73 406.07 12.71
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
38
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 48.15 54.60 102.75 12.84
+14-14-14
Siglat 52.40 54.20 106.60 13.32
NBEM 50.30 50.55 100.85 12.61
BSU compost 48.70 47.80 96.05 12.06
TOTAL 199.55 207.15 406.25
MEAN 12.47 12.95 12.71
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
2.169 0.723
Factor A
1
1.805 1.805
3.85ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
6.609 2.203
4.70* 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
3.909 1.303
2.78ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
9.80 0.469
TOTAL 31 24.332
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 5.39
ns=Not significant
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
39
Appendix 10. Computed marketable yield (t/ha)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
22.00 23.30
23.30
26.00
94.06
23.65
O2
26.20 28.00
25.40
101.8
101.8
26.02
O3
25.00 23.80
24.20
100.6 100.6
25.15
O4
22.60
26.00
24.00
97.04
97.04
24.35
Sub-total 95.08 101.1 96.09 100.6 397.4 24.83
V2O1 28.00 27.50 25.70 28.00 109.2 27.03
O2 29.80 25.00 25.80 27.80 108.4 27.01
O3 25.50 25.50 24.60 25.50 101.1 25.28
O4 23.20 24.00 24.40 24.00 95.06 23.09
Sub-total 106.05 102.00 100.05 105.03 414.8 25.92
TOTAL 201.13 203.01 196.14 208.09 812.2 25.38
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
40
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 94.06 109.20 203.26 25.41
+14-14-14
Siglat 101.80 108.40 210.20 26.27
NBEM 100.60 101.10 201.70 25.21
BSU compost 97.04 95.76 193.00 24.01
TOTAL 393.5 413.76 808.16
MEAN 24.59 25.86 25.22
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
8.331 2.777
Factor A
1
8.925 8.925
4.84* 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
25.793 8.598
4.66* 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
19.776 6.592
3.57* 3.07 4.87
Error
21
38.727 1.844
TOTAL 31 101.552
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 5.35
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010. Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta
vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Percival B. Alipit, Ph.D
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Farm, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, and Benguet from January to March 2010 to identify the variety of sugar beet suited
under La Trinidad, Benguet condition and determine the organic fertilizer best for sugar beet
production in the locality.
Results revealed that there were no significant differences between the two varieties
tested on vegetative growth, root size and weight, non-marketable and marketable yield.
However, Detroit Amelioree had significantly higher computed marketable yield per hectare at
25.86 tons compared to Detroit Dark Red. Plants applied with either Siglat, chicken manure +
14-14-14 or NBEM had significantly higher marketable yield than those applied with BSU
compost.
No distinct differences were observed between the two varieties applied with the various
fertilizers in sugar content, skin and flesh color, and in market preference.
The highest return on investment at 139.26% was obtained from Detroit Amelioree
applied with Siglat( 2.17%N, 3.19% P2O5, 2.27% K2O ) organic fertilizer, thus growing this
variety and application of said fertilizer is desired for greater yield and profit.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………....
i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………
ii
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………......
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………………………………..
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………………….
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………..
11
Percentage Emergence, Number of Leaves,
and Final Height at Harvest ……………………………………………….
11
Average Root Length, Diameter, and Weight ……………………………...
12
Non-marketable, Marketable, and Computed
Yield …………………………………………….……………………......
13
Sugar Content………………………………………………………………
15
Return on Investment……………………………………………………….
17
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION……………………. 19
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………...
20
APENDICES ……………………………………………………………………...
21
1
INTRODUCTION
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) growing for sucrose production became successful
in the United States starting about 1870. Earlier attempts of sugar beet production were
not totally successful. Once a viable industry was established, sugar beets were grown in
26 states (Cattanach, 1991).
The Goosefoot or Pigweed Family (Chenopodiaceae) is composed of three
species with different growth habits. Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) belongs to the Crassa group,
Chard (Beta vulgaris L) to the Cicla group and spinach (Spinacea oleracea L.).
Sugar beet is grown predominantly in regions with temperate climates,
Mediterranean or Arid ones. Today, sugar consumption has been growing at roughly the
rates as world population growth (2% per year). There are substantial differences are
cultural in nature, but per capita consumption also is correlated with wealth and is
highest in Europe and lowest in China and Africa (Kaffa, 2000).
Beet has always been a vital source of energy enriched with nutrients and fiber.
It is biennial and available almost throughout the year. Be it the modified root itself or
chard like edible green leaves both are incredibly contributing to a healthy metabolism.
While Beta vulgaris is widely being relished in the form of salad with spicy and lemon
like flavor and pickles, the edible green leaves too are loaded with rich vitamin like
vitamin C, folate and betaine in large quantities. Vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
vitamin B6, and pantothenic acid are also present in small amounts. It also constitutes
traces of a-carotene. The crop is also known for being rich in nutrients (potassium, iron,
magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, and copper) and small amounts of calcium sodium,
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
2
zinc, and selenium. As for the calorie, it contains calorific value of 43.0 per 100
gm edible portion. With regards to health benefits, it has been found useful in the
treatment of colon cancer and birth related defects. It is a natural cleanser which
removes toxins from the body and nourishes the bloodstream. Also useful in the
treatment of liver related dysfunctions like jaundice, cirrhosis, etc. beet juice is a good
source of energy and is essential for human body. It is not advisable to feed beet to
infants below six months old but it is of good use to women under menstruation.
(Cattanach, 1991).
In the Philippines, vegetable production contributes much to the economy. One
of the most important crops being especially in the high elevation is sugar beet. The
production of such crop provides better income to vegetable growers. It commands a
high price in the market. In the country, it is eaten as a vegetable food.
Sugar beet is mainly produced in Benguet and Mountain Province but there is
need to promote production of the crop on account of being high in economic and
nutritive value.
Varieties of sugar beet need to be tested in the locality and with the trend now of
practicing organic farming, organic fertilizers ought to be evaluated as to their effect on
sustaining crop growth and development.
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Farm, Benguet, State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from January to March 2010 to identify the variety of
sugar beet suited under La Trinidad, Benguet condition and determine the organic
fertilizer best for sugar beet production in the locality.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crop
Sugar beet is a hardy biennial vegetable that can be grown in temperate and
semi- temperate countries, depending of the variety. The crop produces a dense canopy
of leaves and large root in which sugar is stored. It has a cluster of dark-green leaves and
a top short stem called crown. Beneath the crown is the creamy-white cone shape root.
The elongated upper part of the root is called the beet. The root tapers down to form a
thin taproot, which extend up to 0.6 to 1.5 cm into the soil. The long taproot can obtain
water that lies far below the ground.
Root size, before dormancy, is dependent on a number of factors. The most
important of these include length of growing season, care of the growing crop, soil
fertility, and moisture. In Arizona, under normal growing condition, most plants will
attain a root size of 3/4 to 11/2 inches at crown. Under Oregon condition, most plants
will attain a root size of 3/8 to 3/4 inch. In commercial beet production, the root is
harvested after the first growing season, when the root is at maximum size (1-2kg)
storage root whose dry mass is 15-20 % sucrose by weight. The beet root if not
harvested during its second growing season, the nutrients will be utilized for flowering
and seed production (Kaffa and Jackson, 2000).
Importance of Varietal Selection
Selection of a variety to be planted is one of the most important decisions that
commercial vegetable growers make each season considering the yield performance.
The variety has the potential to produce crops at least equivalent to those already grown.
It must also perform well under wide range of environmental conditions usually
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
4
encountered on individual farms and must also have the characteristics desired by
packers, shippers, whole sellers, and consumers. Included among these qualities are size,
shape, color, flavor, and nutritional quality (Lorenz and Maynard, 1988).
Sunil (1990) mentioned that varietal evaluation is a process in crop breeding
program, which provide comparison of promising lines with the local check in order to
establish the superiority of the lines developed by breeders. He emphasized that it is
only through evaluation that breeders determine the performance of developed lines in
terms of yield, quality, adaptability, stress, and insect pests and diseases resistance.
To be successful crop growers, a farmer should have a good control of the
variety and the environment. A variety for example may have a potential for high yield
but if not provided with adequate water and fertilizer or weeds are not controlled, it will
not give high yield. The expression of the genetic potential of a variety is controlled over
a wide range of environmental conditions (Wallace, 1969).
On the other hand, quality is defined as any of the features that make something
excellent or superior (Kader, 1985). For fresh horticultural commodities, quality is a
combination of characteristics attributes and properties that give the commodity value to
humans for food (fruits and vegetables) and enjoyment. Producers are concerned that
their commodities have good appearance and few visual defects but for them useful
cultivars must score high on yield, disease resistance, ease of harvest, and shipping
quality. To receiver’s and market distributors, appearance quality is most important.
They are also keenly interested on firmness and long storage life. Consumers consider
good quality of fruits and vegetables to be presentable, firm and offer good flavor and
nutritive value. Consumers buy based on appearance and satisfaction, purchases are
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
5
dependent upon good quality. Finally, varieties can be evaluated according to the
different quality factors namely: appearance; texture; flavor; nutritive value; and safety
(Kader, 1985).
Edmund and Andrews (1957) said that varieties differ in productivity as an
expression of their hereditary genes influence by the environment. The variety best
adapted to the environment reflects the high yield potential as mentioned by Villareal
(1969). The importance of varietal trial is to evaluate the yield of new varieties in areas
with specific climatic conditions. Each cultivar has its own characteristics and yield
potential.
Selection of a cultivar for production should be based on the optimal yield and
profit that can be obtained. According to Wolford and Banks (2005), the market
availability of seeds and equipment resources that are available to the growers and
cultural conditions of the cite, should be taken into considerations.
Bautista and Mabesa (1969) added that the success in vegetable production is
greatly affected by the farmers’ control of the varieties and environment. Most of the
time, right varieties selected would minimize the problems related to water and fertilizer
management. While growing, the wrong variety would probably cause insect pests and
disease infestation/infection resulting to crop failure.
On the other hand, Del Rosario (1977) concluded that picking the right variety
minimize problems associated with water and fertilizer management.
Organic Fertilizer
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
6
Organic fertilizer comes from manures of animals like pig, chicken, carabao,
cow, horse, and while leaves of plants, rice straw, corn stover, rice hull, etc., are plant
matter.
The use of organic fertilizer results in better soil structure and soils with
sufficient amount of organic matter retain more water for plant use.
Pig and poultry manure are the common sources of organic fertilizer which
provides needed nutrients to plant in small quantity. According to estimates, the manure
produced by 20-30 pigs a year could produce the same result as one ton of ammonium
sulfate.
Organic fertilizer/organic manure are generally the most valuable soil
conditioner. The materials from organic fertilizer generally have low content of nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) but they also supply other essential
micronutrients. As soil conditioners, organic fertilizer helps prevent soil erosion,
crushing and cracking of soil. They retain soil humidity and improved the internal
drainage of the soil (Sangatanan, 2000).
Nitrogen and other nutrient elements contained in organic fertilizer are released
slowly. Thus, their continuous application helps build up the soil, particularly when this
is done for over a long period of time.
Organic fertilizer such as compost, animal manure, azolla, ipil-ipil, industrial
wastes, and oil seed meals can be used in place of chemical fertilizer. Organic fertilizer
should serve as a supplement to inorganic fertilizer. It improves the physical make-up of
the soil making it improves and rich in organic matter.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
7
Effect of Organic Fertilizer
The color of the soil changes from light to dark. It promotes good physical
condition. The organic matter makes the soil friable and loose, resulting in the better soil
aeration and drainage, and making it easier for the roots to grow. In sandy soils, the
organic matter may help bind together the sand particles and increased its water holding
capacity. The physical condition of organic matter itself is also ideal for mixing it with
chemical fertilizer before application. The cation exchange capacity of the soil is
increased and its nutrient availability is enhanced with the application of organic acids in
humus that aids in extracting plant nutrients from mineral soil. Organic materials supply
energy and building constituents for the multiplication of beneficial soil micro-
organisms (Sangatanan, 2000).
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in the study were sugar beet seeds, farm tools, inorganic and
organic fertilizers, Vernier caliper and weighing scale.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out in a factorial
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The treatments were
as follows:
Factor A
Variety
V1
Detroit Dark Red
V2
Detroit Amelioree
Factor B
Organic Fertilizer
O1
Chicken dung - 6.0t/ha + 14-14-
14- 740 kg/ha (farmers’ application practice)
O2
Siglat (2.17%N, 3.19%P205,2.27%k20)-3.0t/ha
O3
NBEM (2.8% N,3.95%P205,3.66%K20)-3.0t/ha
O4
BSU compost (2.0%N,2.7%P205,2.4%K20) – 3.0t/ha
Land preparation. An area of 160 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided
into four blocks. Each block was further divided into eight plots with a dimension of 1m
x 5m each.
Soil analysis. Soil samples were taken before the application of fertilizer for
analysis at the soils laboratory in Baguio City.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
9
Fertilizer application and planting. The organic fertilizers described in the
treatments were applied after preparing the area and mixed thoroughly with the soil.
Two seeds were sown in furrows at a distance of 10 cm between hills and 10 cm
between rows. Thinning was done to retain one plant per hill when the plants developed
four leaves.
Care and maintenance. Irrigation was done after sowing and at three days
interval until plant establishment and at five days interval thereafter. All the other
cultural practices required by the crop were employed.
Data gathered
The data gathered and subjected to variance and mean separation test by
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were as follows:
1. Percentage emergence. This was computed using the formula:
Emergence (%) = Number of seedlings emerged ÷Number of seeds sown x 100
2. Average number of leaves per plant. Leaves of ten sample plants were
counted at harvest.
3.
Final height of plants at harvest (cm). Ten sample plants were measured
from the base of the leaf petioles to the tip of the leaves at harvest.
4.
Root length (cm). The length of ten sample roots were measured using a
foot rule from the base to the tip of the root.
5.
Root diameter (cm). The diameter of ten sample roots were measured at
the mid-section with a vernier caliper.
6. Average root weight (cm). Ten randomly selected roots were weighed
and their weight was divided by ten.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
10
7. Non-marketable yield (kg). This was the weight of rotten, malformed and
small roots.
8.
Marketable yield (kg). This was the weight of saleable roots without
defects.
9.
Computed yield (t/ha). The marketable yield per plot was converted to
tons per hectare by multiplying the marketable yield by 2,000 which is the number of
1x5 m plot per hectare and divided by 1000 which is the weight of one ton.
10.
Market preference. Traders in the market were asked on which variety is
more saleable.
11. Sugar content (Percentage). The sugar content of sample storage roots was
taken using a refractometer.
12. Skin and flesh color. This was determined visually.
13. Economic analysis. All the cost of inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, labor and
others were recorded and so with the sales to compute the profit. The return on
investment (ROI) was taken using the formula:
Gross Income – Total Expenses
ROI (%) = _____________________________________________ x 100
Total Expenses
14. Documentation of the study. A pictures was taken on root yield.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Percentage Emergence, Number of Leaves, and Final Height
Effect of variety. Table 1 shows the emergence percentage number of leaves per
plant, and final height at harvest. There were no significant differences between the two
varieties tested on these parameters. This means that the both varieties have similar
vegetative characteristics.
Effect of organic fertilizer. There were no significant differences in the
emergence percentage, number of leaves per plant, and final height at harvest as affected
by the fertilizers applied (Table 1)
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction between variety and
organic fertilizers on the emergence percentage, number of leaves per plot, and final
height.
Table 1. Percentage emergence, average number of leaves per plant, and final height
EMERGENCE NUMBER OF FINAL
TREATMENT
(%)
LEAVES
HEIGHT
(cm)
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
95.89a
18.25a
48.15a
Detriot Amelioree
96.43a
18.31a
48.04a
Organic Fertilizer
Chicken dung+14-14-14
95.65a
18.58a
48.48a
Siglat
97.21a
18.34a
48.14a
NBEM
97.36a
18.16a
48.07a
BSU compost
94.41a
18.04a
47.71a
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level
by DMRT
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
12
Average Root Length, Diameter, and Weight
Effect of variety. There were no significant differences between the two varieties
on root length, diameter, and weight as presented in Table 2. Nevertheless, Detroit
Amelioree tended to have longer, wider, and heavier root weight.
Effect of organic fertilizer. Table 2 shows that there were no significant
differences on root size and weight. However, application of Siglat tended to increase
root length, diameter, and weight.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effect between variety
and organic fertilizer on the root length, diameter, and average weight.
Table 2. Root length, diameter, and average weight
TREATMENT
LENGTH
DIAMETER WEIGHT
(cm)
(cm)
(g)
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
5.21a
5.12a
235.93a
Detroit Amelioree
5.22a
5.14a
242.31a
Organic fertilizer
Chicken dung + 14-14-14
5.18a
5.07a
239.00a
Siglat
5.47a
5.36a
243.63a
NBEM
5.19a
5.10a
237.13a
BSU compost
5.05a
4.98a
236.7a
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
13
Non-marketable, Marketable,
and Computed yield
Table 3. Non-marketable, marketable, and computed yield
NON-MARKETABLE MARKETABLE COMPUTED
TREATMENTS
(Kg/ 1x 5m plot)
(Kg/ 1x 5m plot)
YIELD
(T/Ha)
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
1.73a
12.47a
24.59b
Detroit Amelioree
1.74a
12.95a
25.86a
Organic fertilizer
Farmer’s practice
1.76a
12.84a
25.41b
Siglat
1.50a
13.32a
26.27a
NBEM
1.62a
12.61ab
25.21ab
BSU compost 2.04a
12.06b
24.01b
In column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level
by DMRT
Effect of variety. Table 3 shows that there were no significant differences
between the two varieties tested on the non-marketable and marketable yield. However,
Detroit Amelioree had significantly higher computed marketable yield per hectare
compared to Detroit Dark Red.
Effect of organic fertilizer. No significant differences were observed on the non-
marketable root yield as affected by the fertilizer treatments as shown in Table 3. The
highest marketable yield obtained from the application of Siglat was comparable to those
with the application of chicken dung+14-14-14 or NBEM but significantly higher than that
with the application of BSU compost (Table 3). On the other hand, computed marketable
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
14
yield was higher with the application of Siglat comparable to that with the application of
NBEM but significantly higher than those with the application of the rest of the fertilizers
as shown in Table 3.
Interaction effect. Figure 1 shows that Detroit Amelioree applied with chickendung
+ 14-14-14 had the highest computed marketable yield comparable to the yield obtained
from the same variety and applied with either Siglat or NBEM and the yield from the
Detroit Dark Red and applied with Siglat or NBEM but significantly higher than the yield
from the other treatment combinations.
Skin and Flesh Color
The skin and the flesh of the roots regardless of the variety and fertilizer applied
were similar having purple color.
Market Preference
The marketable roots from the varieties applied with any of the fertilizers were
saleable in the market.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
15
Figure 1. Computed marketable yield as affected by variety and organic fertilizer
(bars with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT)
Sugar Content
Effect of variety. The sugar content did not differ significantly between the two
test varieties ranging from 9.4 to 9.5% as shown in Table 4.
Effect of the of oganic fertilizer. There were no significant differences in the
sugar content of the roots as affected by the fertilizer applied Table 4 .
Interaction Effect. No significant interaction effects were observed on the sugar
content.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
16
Chicken dung and 14-14-14 Siglat
NBEM
BSU compost
Roots harvested from Detroit Dark Red applied with different fertilizers
Chicken dung and 14-14-14
Siglat
NBEM
BSU compost
Roots harvested from Detroit Amelioree applied with different fertilizers
Figure 2.Sample roots harvested from sugar beet varieties applied with different
fertilizers.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
17
Table 4. Sugar content
TREATMENT PERCENTAGE
Variety
Detroit Dark Red
9.52
Detroit Ameloiree
9.42
Organic fertilizer
Chicken dung+14-14-14
9.40
Siglat
9.54
NBEM
9.53
BSU compost
9.42
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Economic Analysis
Table 6 shows that the highest return on investment (ROI) was obtained from
Detroit Amelioree applied with Siglat at 139.26% followed by Detroit Dark Red applied
with Siglat 130.41%, while the lowest ROI at 96.54% was taken from Detroit Dark Red
applied with chicken dung and 14-14-14.
Soil Analysis
The soil in the experiment area had an analysis of 1.0 % organic matter, 162 ppm
phosphorus, and 174 pmm potassium.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
18
Table 5. Return on Investment (ROI)
Detroit Dark Red
Detroit Amelioree
PERTICULARS
Chiken dung
Sigat
N-BEM
BSU
Chiken dung
Siglat
N-BEM
BSU
+14-14-14
Compost +14-14-14
Compost
Marketable Yield
48.15
52.04
50.03
47.07
54.06
54.04
50.058
47.080
(kg/per 20 m2)
Sales(Php)
1,059.3
1,144.88 1,100.66 1,035.54
1,189.32
1,188.88 1,101.1
1,033.76
Expenses (Php):
Labor
375
375
375
375
375
375
375
375
Seeds
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
24.02
14-14-14
39.96
-
-
-
39.96
-
-
-
Chicken Dung
28.80
-
-
-
28.80
-
-
-
Organic Fertilizer
-
27
27
27
-
27
27
27
Gasoline
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
55.12
Transport
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
Total Expenses (Php)
538.65
496.89
496.89
496.89
538.95
496.89
496.89
496.89
Net Profit (Php)
520.65
647.99
603.77
538.65
650.37
691.99
604.21
536.87
ROI (%)
96.54
130.41
121.51
108.40
120.67
139.26
121.60
108.04
Rank
8
2
4
6
5
1
3
7
Note: The selling price was 22 pesos per kilogram
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition.
KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
19
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Farm, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from January to March, 2010 to identify the variety of
sugar beet suited under La Trinidad, Benguet condition and to determine the organic
fertilizer best for sugar beet production in the locality.
Results showed that there were no significant differences between the two
varieties as well as the fertilizers used on the growth and yield components. However,
Detriot Amelioree significantly had higher computed marketable yield at 25.86 t/ha and
application of Siglat, NBEM or following the farmers fertilizers application practice of
using chicken dung + 14-14-14 significantly effected higher marketable yield. Sugar
content did not significantly vary as affected by variety or fertilizer. Likwise, root, skin
and flesh color, and market preference were similar.
The highest return on investment (ROI) at 139.26 % was obtained from Detroit
Amelioree and application of Siglat (2.17% N, 3.19% P2O5, 2.27% K2O).
Conclusion
Based from the results of the study, it is concluded that Detroit Amelioree applied
with Siglat had the highest marketable yield and from which the highest ROI was
derived.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended that Detroit Amelioree be grown in the locality with
the application of Siglat to improve sugar beet production.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
20
LITERATURE CITED
BAUTISTA, O.K. and R.C. MABESA. 1969. Vegetable Production. UPLB, Los Baños,
Laguna. P. 62.
CATTANACH, A.B. 1991. Sugar beet production cost and practices in Southern Idaho.
Univ. of Idaho, College of Agriculture. Cooperative Extension Service. Current
Information Series No. 514.
DEL ROSARIO, D.A. 1977. Variety-environment and their interaction. The Interstate
Printers and Publ. Corp. p.209.
EDMUND, J.R. and F.S. ANDREWS. 1957. Fundamentals of Horticulture. New York:
McGraw Hill Co. P.
KADER, A.A. 1985. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. Regents of the
University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
KAFFA, S. and F. JACKSON. 2000. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from Sugar beet.
vcdavis/sbchap. Html.
LORENZ, A. and R.N. MAYNARD. 1988. Knots Handbook for Vegetable Growers.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. P. 30.
SANGATANAN, R.L. 2000. Practical Guide to Organic Gardening in the Philippines.
Busy Book Distributors. Quezon City.
SUNIL, K.R. 1990. Varietal evaluation of promising lines and path coefficient analysis in
pole snap beans. MS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-65.
VILLAREAL, R.L. 1969. Vegetable Training Manual. UPCA, College, Los Baños,
Laguna. P. 127.
WALLACE, P.D. 1969. Genetics, environment and plant responses. In: Vegetable
Training Manual (R.L. Villareal and PD. Wallace eds.). UPCA, College, Los
Banos, Laguna. P. 12.
WOLFORD, R. and D. BANKS. 2005. Watch your garden grow. Water melon. Univ. Of
Illinois Extension. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from http://w.w.w.vga.edu.!
vegetable/watermelon#plantchar#plantchar.
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
21
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Percentage emergence
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL MEAN
V1O1
93.41
96.14
95.06
96.42
381.57
95.39
O2
97.22
95.40
96.47
96.40
385.49
96.37
O3
98.38
97.76
98.29 96.91 391.33
97.83
O4
94.22
91.20
92.36
98.04
375.82
93.96
Sub-total
383.23
380.05 382.18 387.77 1534.21
95.89
V2O1
91.66
96.32
96.80
98.81
383.59
95.89
O2
98.80
97.16
97.66
98.60
392.22
98.06
O3
98.04
96.19
97.07
96.26
387.56
96.89
O4
96.81
94.35
95.34
92.97
379.47
94.87
Sub-total
392.31
384.02 386.87 386.64 1542.84
96.43
TOTAL
775.54
764.07 769.05 7774.41 3077.5
96.16
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
22
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
DARK RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 381.57
393.59
765.16
95.65
+14-14-14
Siglat
385.49
392.22
777.71
97.21
NBEM
391.33
387.56
777.89
97.36
BSU compost
375.82
379.59
755.29
94.41
TOTAL 1534.21 1542.84 3077.05
MEAN
95.00
96.43
96.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01
FREEDOM
Replication
3
1.818
0.606
Factor A
1
3.525
3525
1.0918 ns
4.26
7.82
Factor B
3
43.190
14.397 4.4597*
3.03
4.72
A x B
3
9.964
3.321
1.0288 ns
3.03
4.72
Error
21
77.477
3.228
TOTAL
31
134.155
*=Significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 1.87
ns =Not significant
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
23
Appendix Table 2. Average number of leaves per plant
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL MEAN
V1O1
18.00
18.90
19.00 19.00
74.50
18.63
O2
17.90
18.70
19.10 18.20
73.90
18.48
O3
18.00
18.30
18.20 18.30
72.80
18.20
O4
17.90
18.60
16.40 17.90
70.80
17.70
Sub-total
61.08
74.04
72.07 73.04
292.0
18.25
V2O1
18.40
18.90
18.20 18.60
74.10
18.53
O2
18.70
18.60
16.90 18.60
72.80
18.20
O3
17.80
18.10
18.10 18.50
72.50
18.13
O4
18.50
18.40
18.20 18.40
73.03
18.25
Subtotal
73.34
74.00
71.04 74.01 292.4
18.27
TOTAL
134.12 148.04
143.11 147.05 584.4
18.26
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
24
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 74.50 74.10 148.06 18.57
+14-14-14
Siglat
73.90
72.80 146.07 18.33
NBEM
72.80
72.50
145.03 18.16
BSU compost
70.80
73.03
143.08 17.98
TOTAL 292.00 292.04 584.04
MEAN 18.25 18.27 18.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01
FREEDOM
Replication
3
1.818
0.606
Factor A
1 0.025
0.025
0.11 ns
4.26
8.02
Factor B
3
1.303
0.434
1.83 ns
3.07
4.87
A x B
3
1.068
0.356
1.49 ns
3.07
4.87
Error
21
4.999
0.238
TOTAL
31
9.215
ns =Not significant Coefficient of variation (%) = 2.98
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
25
Appendix 3. Final height at harvest (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
V1O1
46.50
48.47
49.10
48.62
192.69
48.17
O2
47.57
48.34
47.46
48.38
191.75
47.14
O3
53.15
47.00
47.60
47.66
195.41
48.85
O4
47.76
46.10
48.30
48.45
190.61
47.65
Sub-total
194.98
189.91
192.46 193.11
770.46
48.15
V2O1
48.21
48.41
48.79
49.76
195.17
48.79
O2
48.19
47.76
48.37
49.01
193.33
48.33
O3
48.51
48.01
48.06
44.54
189.12
47.28
O4
48.05
47.60
48.16
47.28
191.09
47.77
Sub-total 192.96
191.78
193.38 190.59
768.71
48.04
TOTAL 387.94 381.69 385.84 383.07 1539.17 48.09
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
26
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELOREE
Chicken dung 162.69 195.17 387.86 48.48
+14-14-14
Siglat 191.75 193.33 385.08 48.13
NBEM 195.41 189.12 384.53 48.06
BSU compost 190.61 191.09 381.07 47.71
TOTAL 770.46 768.71 1539.17
MEAN 48.15 48.01 48.09
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION OF SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Replication 3 1.818 0.606
Factor A 1 0.025 0.025 0.11ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B 3 0.024 0.434 1.83ns 3.07 4.87
A x B 3 1.068 0.356 1.49ns 3.07 4.87
Error 21 2.057 2.057
TOTAL 31 9.215
ns=Not significant Coefficient of variation(%)=2.98
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
27
Appendix 4. Average root length (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
V1O1
4.28
5.74
5.10
4.90
20.56
5.14
O2
4.75
6.00
5.16
5.90
21.81
5.42
O3
5.10
5.00
4.98
5.14
20.22
5.06
O4
4.98
5.52
5.24
5.00
20.74
5.19
Sub-total
19.11
22.26
20.48
20.94
83.33
5.21
V2O1
4.76
5.74
5.41
4.98
20.89
5.22
O2
5.96
5.73
4.91
5.16
21.76
5.44
O3
5.33
5.62
4.81
5.52
21.28
5.32
O4
4.91
5.00
4.73
4.98
19.62
4.91
Sub-total 20.96
22.09
19.86
20.64
83.55
5.22
TOTAL 40.07 44.35 40.08 41.58 166.88 5.21
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
28
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 20.56 20.89 41.45 5.18
+14-14-14
Siglat 21.81 21.76 43.57 5.44
NBEM 20.22 21.28 41.05 5.18
BSU compost 20.74 19.62 40.36 5.04
TOTAL 83.33 83.55 166.88
MEAN 5.21 5.22 5.22
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
1.259
0.420
Factor A
1
0.002
0.002 0.01ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
0.674
0.225 2.07ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
0.310
0.103 0.95ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
2.276
0.108
TOTAL 31 4.520
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 6.31
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
29
Appendix 5. Average root diameter (cm)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
4.75
5.60
4.99
4.76
20.10
5.03
O2
4.65
5.92
5.10
5.80
21.47
5.37
O3
4.99
4.98
4.82
5.10
19.89
4.97
O4
4.86
5.45
5.13
4.96
20.40
5.10
Sub-total
19.25
21.95
20.04
20.62
81.86
5.12
V2O1
4.62
5.61
5.30
4.94
20.47
5.12
O2
5.80
5.64
4.48
5.12
21.44
5.36
O3
5.20
5.55
4.72
5.40
20.87
5.22
O4
4.82
4.96
4.65
4.97
19.40
4.85
Sub-total 20.44
21.76
22.55
20.43
82.18
5.14
TOTAL 39.69 43.71 42.59 41.05 164.04 5.13
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
30
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer)
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chiken dung 20.10 20.47 40.57 5.07
+14-14-14
Siglat 21.47 21.44 42.91 5.36
NBEM 19.89 20.87 40.76 5.09
BSU compost 20.40 19.40 39.08 4.97
TOTAL 81.86 82.18 164.04
MEAN 5.21 5.14 5.13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
1.381 0.460
Factor A
1
0.003 0.003 0.03ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
0.666 0.222 2.34ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
0.259 0.086 0.91ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
1.990 0.0095
TOTAL 31 4.229
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 6.00
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
31
Appendix 6. Average root weight (g)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
234.0
248.0
239.0
214.0
935.0
233.57
O2
208.0
251.0
249.0
250.0
958.0
239.50
O3
238.0
230.0
216.0
248.0
932.0
233.00
O4
227.0
244.0
241.0
241.0
950.0
237.50
Sub-total
907.0
973.0
945.0
953.0
3775
235.93
V2O1
244.0
248.0
248.0
237.0
977.0
244.25
O2
239.0
253.0
249.0
250.0
991.0
247.75
O3
239.0
248.0
237.0
241.0
965.0
241.25
O4
237.0
240.0
232.0
235.0
944.0
236.00
Sub-total 959.0
989.0
966.0
936.0
3877
242.03
TOTAL 1866 1962 1911 1889 7652 239.12
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
32
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 935 977 1912 239
+14-14-14
Siglat 958 991 1949 243.62
NBEM 932 965 1897 237.12
BSU compost 950 944 1894 236.74
TOTAL 3775 3877 7652
MEAN 235.93 242.03 239.12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
531.750 177.250
Factor A
1
325.124 235.275 2.84ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
239.250 79.750 0.70ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
172.125 57.375 0.50ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
2405.250 114.536
TOTAL 31 3673.500
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 4.48
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
33
Appendix 7. Sugar content (Brix)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
10
9.07
9.08
9.08
37.23
9.31
O2
9.08
10.01
9.08
10
38.17
9.54
O3
10.03 10
9.04
9.06
38.13
9.53
O4
9.06
9.08
10
10
38.14
9.54
Sub-total 38.17 38.16 37.02 38.14 151.67 9.47
V2O1 9.09 9.09 9.06 10 37.24 9.31
O2 10.03 9.05 10 9.07 38.15 9.53
O3 9.05 9.08 10 10 38.13 9.53
O4 9.08 9.09 9.06 10 37.23 9.42
Sub-total 37.25 36.31 38.12 39.07 150.75 9.42
TOTAL 75.42 74.47 75.14 77.21 302.42 9.45
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
34
TWO-WAY TABLE (Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 37.23 37.24 74.47 9.31
+14-14-14
Siglat 38.17 38.15 76.32 9.54
NBEM 38.13 38.13 76.26 9.53
BSU compost 38.14 37.23 75.37 9.42
TOTAL 151.67 150.75 302.42
MEAN 9.47 9.42 9.45
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
2.170 0.423
Factor A
1
0.084 0.084
0.3144ns 4.26 7.82
Factor B
3
0.130 0.043
0.1618ns 3.03 4.72
A x B
3
0.083 0.028
0.1029ns 3.03 4.72
Error
21
6.416 0.267
TOTAL 31 6.712
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 5.46
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
35
Appendix 8. Non-marketable yield (kg/1x5 m plot)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
1.50
2.35
1.60
1.50
6.95
1.74
O2
2.00 1.20
1.50
1.10
5.80
4.45
O3
1.75
1.90
1.30
1.40
6.35
1.59
O4
3.00
1.75
2.80
1.00
8.55
2.14
Sub-total 8.25 7.02 7.02 5 27.65 1.73
V2O1 1.75 1.30 2.20 1.60 7.15 1.79
O2 1.50 1.15 1.75 1.80 6.20 1.55
O3 1.30 1.45 1.90 1.95 6.60 1.65
O4 2.00 2.10 2.50 1.30 7.90
Sub-total 6.55 6.00 8.35 39.07 27.85 1.74
TOTAL 14.08 13.02 15.37 77.21 55.5 1.73
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
36
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 6.95 7.15 14.01 1.76
+14-14-14
Siglat 5.80 6.20 12.00 1.50
NBEM 6.35 6.60 12.95 1.60
BSU compost 8.55 7.90 16.45 2.05
TOTAL 27.65 27.85 55.05
MEAN 1.73 1.74 1.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
1.270 0.423
Factor A
1
0.001 0.001
0.01ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
1.382 0.461
2.06ns 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
0.084 0.028
0.13ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
4.705 0.224
TOTAL 31 7.442
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 27.29
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
37
Appendix 9. Marketable yield (kg/1x5 m plot)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
11.00 12.50
11.65
13.00
48.15
12.04
O2
13.00 14.00
12.70
12.60
52.40
13.10
O3
12.50 11.90
12.10
12.80 50.30
12.58
O4
11.30
13.00
12.00
12.40
48.70
12.18
Sub-total 47.08 51.04 48.45 50.08 199.55 12.47
V2O1 14.00 13.75 12.85 14.00 54.60 13.65
O2 14.90 12.50 12.90 13.90 54.20 13.55
O3 12.75 12.75 12.30 12.75 50.55 12.64
O4 11.60 12.00 12.20 12.00 47.80 11.95
Sub-total 53.25 51.00 50.25 52.65 207.15 12.94
TOTAL 100.33 102.04 98.07 102.73 406.07 12.71
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
38
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 48.15 54.60 102.75 12.84
+14-14-14
Siglat 52.40 54.20 106.60 13.32
NBEM 50.30 50.55 100.85 12.61
BSU compost 48.70 47.80 96.05 12.06
TOTAL 199.55 207.15 406.25
MEAN 12.47 12.95 12.71
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
2.169 0.723
Factor A
1
1.805 1.805
3.85ns 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
6.609 2.203
4.70* 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
3.909 1.303
2.78ns 3.07 4.87
Error
21
9.80 0.469
TOTAL 31 24.332
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 5.39
ns=Not significant
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
39
Appendix 10. Computed marketable yield (t/ha)
REPLICATION _________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
V1O1
22.00 23.30
23.30
26.00
94.06
23.65
O2
26.20 28.00
25.40
101.8
101.8
26.02
O3
25.00 23.80
24.20
100.6 100.6
25.15
O4
22.60
26.00
24.00
97.04
97.04
24.35
Sub-total 95.08 101.1 96.09 100.6 397.4 24.83
V2O1 28.00 27.50 25.70 28.00 109.2 27.03
O2 29.80 25.00 25.80 27.80 108.4 27.01
O3 25.50 25.50 24.60 25.50 101.1 25.28
O4 23.20 24.00 24.40 24.00 95.06 23.09
Sub-total 106.05 102.00 100.05 105.03 414.8 25.92
TOTAL 201.13 203.01 196.14 208.09 812.2 25.38
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
40
TWO-WAY TABLE ( Variety x Fertilizer )
FERTILIZER DETROIT DARK DETROIT TOTAL MEAN
RED AMELIOREE
Chicken dung 94.06 109.20 203.26 25.41
+14-14-14
Siglat 101.80 108.40 210.20 26.27
NBEM 100.60 101.10 201.70 25.21
BSU compost 97.04 95.76 193.00 24.01
TOTAL 393.5 413.76 808.16
MEAN 24.59 25.86 25.22
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 3
8.331 2.777
Factor A
1
8.925 8.925
4.84* 4.32 8.02
Factor B
3
25.793 8.598
4.66* 3.07 4.87
A x B
3
19.776 6.592
3.57* 3.07 4.87
Error
21
38.727 1.844
TOTAL 31 101.552
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation (%) = 5.35
Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic
Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition. KUDAN, JAYSON D. OCTOBER 2010
Document Outline
- Performance Evaluation of Sugar Beet (Betavulgaris L.) Varieties as Affected by Organic Fertilizers Under La Trinidad, Benguet Condition
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES