BIBLIOGRAPHY WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013. Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea
(Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel, Pangasinan. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Franklin G. Bawang, MSc.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted at Lac-lac, San Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan from
October 2012 to January 2013 to evaluate the growth and yield performance of six different
varieties of garden pea and to identify the variety that is most suited at San Manuel,
Pangasinan.
Results revealed that although vegetative growth and yield of the six garden pea
evaluated were not significant, data reflected that garden pea pods harvested from Betag
variety had the heaviest total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare with a mean of
1.25 kg and 1.95 t/ha followed by pods obtained from Chinese garden pea (white) and
CGP-11 and CPG-13 varieties having the same means of 1.24 kg/plot and 1.92 t/ha. Plants
grown from CGP-110 produced pods having the lowest total yield with a mean of 1.13
kg/plot and 1.85 t/ha among the varieties evaluated.
Results also revealed that Betag variety obtained the highest return of investment
of 260.53% followed by the varieties Chinese Garden Pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13
with an ROI of 253.17%. The CGP-110 variety produced the lowest return of investment
of 242.14%.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Days to Seedling Emergence
The results presented in Table 1 shows that there were no significant statistical
differences observed with regards to the number of days from sowing to seedling
emergence of the six varieties of garden pea. However, numerical figures reveals that the
earliest to emerged were the varieties CGP-11, Betag, CGP-13, and CGP-110 with a
comparable means of 5 days while to Chinese garden pea (white) and Lapad varieties
having comparable means of 7 days took longer days to emerged.
Number of Days to Flowering
The number of days from sowing to flowering of the six different garden pea
varieties did not differ significantly as shown in Table 2. However, numerically, varieties
that flowered earlier were CGP-11, Betag, CGP-13, and CGP-110 with comparable means
of 39 days as compared to Chinese garden pea (white) and Lapad varieties having a
comparable means of 37 days. Since Chinese varieties are considered to have a maturity
period of 90-100 days (BSU Techno Guide for Garden Pea, 1982). Thus, peas grown in
an area having higher temperature would produce flower earlier than those grown in an
area having relatively lower temperature. This also collaborates with the findings of Dayag
(1980) that climatic requirements of garden pea production starts from October and extends
to January.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 1. Days to seedling emergence
VARIETY
MEAN
(Days)
Chinese garden pea (White)
7a
CGP-11
5a
Betag
5a
CGP-13
5a
CGP-110
5a
Lapad
7a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Table 2. Number of days to flowering
MEAN
VARIETY
(Days)
Chinese garden pea (White)
37a
CGP-11
37a
Betag
39a
CGP-13
37a
CGP-110
37a
Lapad
39a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Days to First Harvesting
As presented in Table 3, there were no significant differences observed on the numbers of
days to first harvesting of garden pea pods. However, pods that were harvested earlier were
from the varieties Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, CGP-13, and CGP-110 having
comparable means of 57 days. It was followed by the pods produced from Betag varieties
with a mean of 58 days while the pods obtained from Lapad variety with a mean of 59 days
attained the first harvesting stage after one day.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Number of Pods Per Cluster
The number of pods per cluster is presented in Table 4. Result shows that all the different
garden pea varieties evaluated used did not differ significantly. But numerical data shows
that the most number of pods was noted on Betag variety with a mean of 8.45 followed by
pods from Chinese garden pea (white) variety with mean of 8.15. The least number of pods
per cluster were obtained from the variety CGP-110 with a mean of 7.75.
Table 3. Days to first harvesting
MEAN
VARIETY
(Days)
Chinese garden pea (White)
57a
CGP-11
57a
Betag
58a
CGP-13
57a
CGP-110
57a
Lapad
59a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Table 4. Number of pods per cluster
VARIETY
MEAN
Chinese garden pea (White)
8.15a
CGP-11
8.05a
Betag
8.45a
CGP-13
7.95a
CGP-110
7.75a
Lapad
7.85a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Days to Maturity of Pods
Table 5 shows that there were no significant statistical differences on the number of days
to maturity of pods of the six garden pea varieties. Numerically, pods observed from
Chinese garden pea (white) and Betag variety were the last to reach maturity stage with a
mean of 78 days. Pods from the varieties CGP-11, CGP-13, CGP-110, and Lapad were
earlier to reach maturity stage with 74 days.
Length of Pods (cm)
Table 6 shows that there were highly significant differences observed with regards to the
pod length of six the varieties of garden pea. Betag variety produced the longest pods with
a mean of 7.17cm followed by CGP-13 with a mean of 6.81 cm. It was followed further by
Lapad variety but statistically comparable to CPG 11 variety with a mean of 6.45 and
6.47cm. The CGP-110 variety registered the shortest pod length with a mean of 5.99. The
results maybe due to the general observation that Betag variety produced long and large
pods.
Table 5. Days to maturity of pods
VARIETY
MEAN
Chinese garden pea (White)
78a
CGP-11
74a
Betag
78a
CGP-13
74a
CGP-110
74a
Lapad
74a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Weight of Marketable Pods (kg)
Table 7 shows that the weight of marketable pods among the garden pea varieties evaluated
were not statistically significant. However, numerical results indicated that pods from
Betag variety had the heaviest marketable weight having a mean of 0.98 kg. It was followed
by the pods grown from Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, and CGP-13 having the
same means of 0.96 kg. Pods obtained from the variety CGP-110 had the lowest marketable
yield of 0.93 kg. These differences in the weight of marketable pods maybe directly related
to the quality of seeds sown.
Table 6. Length of pods (cm)
MEAN
VARIETY
(cm)
Chinese garden pea (White)
6.21cd
CGP-11
6.47bc
Betag
7.17a
CGP-13
6.81b
CGP-110
5.99d
Lapad
6.45bc
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Table 7. Weight of marketable pods (kg)
MEAN
VARIETY
(kg)
Chinese garden pea (White)
0.96a
CGP-11
0.96a
Betag
0.98a
CGP-13
0.96a
CGP-110
0.93a
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Lapad
0.95a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Weight of Non-Marketable Pods (kg)
Likewise, results show that there were no significant differences obtained on the
weight of non-marketable pods between the six garden pea varieties tested as shown in
Table 8. Numerically however, pods gathered from Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11,
and Betag varieties had the heaviest weight of non-marketable pods. It was followed by
CGP-13 variety having a mean of 0.24 kg. Pods from CGP-110 and Lapad had the lowest
weight of non-marketable pods with a mean of 0.20 kg due to the higher pod defects. Small
seeds produced the smallest vines which correspondingly produced smaller pods especially
towards the tip of the vines which were classified as non-marketable.
Total Yield Per Plot (kg)
As presented in Table 9, the results showed that there were no significant
differences observed among the variety means. Nevertheless, data reflects that garden pea
pods harvested from Betag variety had the heaviest total yield per plot with a mean of 1.25
kg followed by pods obtained from Chinese garden pea (white) and CGP-11 varieties
having the same means of 1.24 kg/plot. Plants grown from CGP-110 produced pods having
the lowest total yield among the varieties.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 8. Weight of non-marketable pods (kg)
MEAN
VARIETY
(kg)
Chinese garden pea (White)
0.28a
CGP-11
0.28a
Betag
0.28a
CGP-13
0.24a
CGP-110
0.20a
Lapad
0.20a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Number of Picking
Table 10 shows that there were no significant differences observed among the varieties on
the number of picking. It indicated that all the six garden pea varieties had the same number
of pickings of 5 from the very first harvest up to the last harvest of pods.
Table 9. Total yield per plot (kg)
VARIETY
MEAN
(kg)
Chinese garden pea (White)
1.24a
CGP-11
1.24a
Betag
1.25a
CGP-13
1.19a
CGP-110
1.13a
Lapad
1.15a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 10. Number of picking
VARIETY
MEAN
Chinese garden pea (White)
5a
CGP-11
5a
Betag
5a
CGP-13
5a
CGP-110
5a
Lapad
5a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT.
Table 11. Computed Yield Per Hectare (t/ha)
Computed yield per hectare is presented in Table 11. The different varieties of
garden pea did not show any significant differences from each other. However, results
show that Betag variety obtained the highest computed yield of 1.95t/ha. Followed by
varieties Chinese garden pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13 all having equal means of
1.92t/ha. Lowest computed yield were produced from CGP-110 variety with a mean of
1.85t/ha.
Meteorological Data
Table 12 shows the climatological conditions gathered at WS admin meteorological station
located at San Roque dam during the period of the study.
Mean temperature (maximum) per month ranged from 26.7°C (January) to 27.4°C
(November). Mean relative humidity was high in the month of November (87%) and lowest
in the month of January (79%). There was no rain recorded in the month of November and
December. The sun rosed at the time of 6.02 and sunset at 6.07 during the study.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 11. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha)
MEAN
VARIETY
(t/ha)
Chinese garden pea (White)
1.92a
CGP-11
1.92a
Betag
1.95a
CGP-13
1.92a
CGP-110
1.85a
Lapad
1.90a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Physiological Disorder
Curling of pods was observed during the harvesting stage of the six garden pea
varieties evaluated which are considered non-marketable pods.
Table 12. Meteorological data
Temperature (°C)
Day Length
Month
Relative
Rainfall
Humidity (%)
(mm)
Maximum Minimum
Sunrise
Sunset
November
87
27.4
19.0
0.00
6:03
6:06
December
84
27.0
18.4
1.80
6:04
6.07
January
79
26.7
18.0
0.00
6:00
6:09
Mean
83
27.0
18.47
0.6
6.02
6.07
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMR
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 13 shows the cost and return analysis of the study. Result revealed that Betag
variety obtained the highest return of investment of 260.53% followed by the varieties
Chinese Garden Pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13 with an ROI of 253.17%. The CGP-
110 variety produced the lowest return of investment of 242.14%.
Table 13. Cost and return analysis
Chinese
CGP-
Particular
Garden Pea CGP-11 Betag CGP-13
Lapad
110
(White)
Yield (Kg)
14.40
14.40
14.70
14.40
13.95
14.25
Sales (Php)
216.00
216.00 220.50
216.00
209.25 213.75
Expenses (Php)
Seeds
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
14-14-14
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Chicken Manure
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
Trellis
-
-
-
-
-
-
Padan 50 SP
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cumulus
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Labor Cost
Land Preparation
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
Planting
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
Thinning
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fertilizer application
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hilling up
-
-
-
-
-
-
Harvesting
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
Expenses (Php)
16.16
16.16
16.16
16.16
16.16
16.16
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Net Income (Php)
154.84
154.84 159.34
154.84
148.09 152.59
ROI (%)
253.17
253.17 260.53
253.17
242.14 249.49
RANK
2
2
1
2
4
3
*Note Selling Price = Php P150.00/kg
Figure 1. During planting
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Figure 2. During hilling-up
Figure 3. Flowering stage
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Figure 4. Harvesting the pods
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at Lac-lac, San Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan from
November 2012 to January 2013 to evaluate the growth and yield performance of six
different varieties of garden pea and to identify the varieties that are most adapted at San
Manuel, Pangasinan condition.
The number of days from sowing to seedling emergence, from sowing to flowering,
and days to maturity of pods of the six different garden pea varieties did not differ
significantly. However, numerically, varieties that emerged, flowered and matured earlier
were observed from the varieties CGP-11, Betag, CGP-13, and CGP-110 with comparable
means of 5 days to emerged, 39 days to flower and 74 days to reach maturity as compared
to Chinese garden pea (white) and Lapad varieties having comparable means of 7 days to
emerged, 37 days to flower, and 78 days to reach maturity.
Likewise, there were no significant differences observed on the numbers of days to
first harvesting of garden pea pods. However, pods that were harvested earlier were from
the varieties Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, CGP-13, and CGP-110 having
comparable means of 57 days. It was followed by the pods produced from Betag varieties
with a mean of 58 days while the pods obtained from Lapad variety with a mean of 59 days
attained the first harvesting stage after one day.
Results show that there were highly significant differences observed with regards to the
pod length of six the varieties of garden pea. Betag variety produced the longest pods with
a mean of 7.17 cm followed by CGP-13 with a mean of 6.81 cm. It was followed further
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
by Lapad variety but statistically comparable to CPG 11 variety with a mean of 6.45 and
6.47 cm. The CGP-110 variety registered the shortest pod length with a mean of 5.99 cm.
With regards to the weight of marketable and non-marketable pods among the garden pea
varieties evaluated were not statistically significant. However, numerical results indicated
that pods from Betag variety had the heaviest marketable and non-marketable weight with
a mean of 0.98 kg (marketable) and 0.28 kg (non-marketable). It was followed by the pods
grown from Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, and CGP-13 having the same means of
0.96 kg (marketable yield). Pods obtained from the variety CGP-110 and Lapad had the
lowest non-marketable yield of 0.20 kg.
Results showed that there were no significant differences observed among the variety
means with regards to the total yield per plot and computed yield per heactare.
Nevertheless, data reflects that garden pea pods harvested from Betag variety had the
heaviest total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare with a mean of 1.25 kg and
1.95 t/ha followed by pods obtained from Chinese garden pea (white) and CGP-11 and
CPG-13 varieties having the same means of 1.24 kg/plot and 1.92 t/ha. Plants grown from
CGP-110 produced pods having the lowest total yield with a mean of 1.13 kg/plot and 1.85
t/ha among the varieties evaluated.
Result revealed that Betag variety obtained the highest return of investment of 260.53%
followed by the varieties Chinese Garden Pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13 with an ROI
of 253.17%. The CGP-110 variety produced the lowest return of investment of 242.14%.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that based on the results presented, Betag variety produced
slightly higher number and length of pods per plant, with heavier marketable yield,
produced the higher computed yield and highest return on investment among the varieties
evaluated.
Recommendation
Although no significant differences were observed among the various varieties
evaluated, it is therefore recommended as per the data obtained on the cost of return
analysis, number of pods per plant, length of pods, weight of marketable pods and
computed yield per hectare, Betag variety is suitable garden pea production at Lac-lac, San
Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
CADA, E. C. and G. W. COOKE. 1981. Factors Affecting Yield and Quality of Vegetables
Agricultural Information Division. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Diliman, Q. C. Vol. 3 (6). P. 6.
CHAPMAN, R. S. and P. L CARTER. 1976. Crop Production. Montana State University.
W. Freeman and Company: San Francisco. P. 374.
DAYAG, C. 1980. Garden Pea. The world Book of Encyclopedia 3; Printers Hill
Company. P. 29.
DUKE, J. A. 1981. Hand book of legumes of world economic importance. Retrieved.
September 1, 2012. P. 37.
HARTMAN, H. C. and KESTER. 1975. Plant Propagation Principles. Canada: John Wily
and Sons, Inc. Pp. 297-298.
KENNETH, W. B. 1979. Horticulture Enterprise. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippin Cott. Co. P.
266-267.
MUEHLBAUER, F. J. and A. A. TULLU. 1997. Alternative Field Crops Manual.
Retrieved. Sept. 12, 2012. P. 324.
PURSEGLOVE, J. W. 1968. Tropical Crops Dicotyedons. Singapore: Boon Hwa Printing
Company. P. 312.
RASCO, E. T. JR and V. D. AMANTE. 1994. Sweet potato variety evaluation. Volume 1.
Southeast Asian Program for Potato Research and Development. Lima Peru. Pp. 42-43.
SAUER, J. D. 1993. Historical geography of crop plants. Retrieved. September 4, 2012. P.
415.
SHRESTA, M. L. 1989. Varietal Response of Bush Beans to Fertilization and Inoculation.
MS Thesis. BSU. La Trinidad Benguet. P. 3.
SOLANO, M. E. 1983. Yield of Six Tomato Variety under Ambuklao condition. BS.
Thesis Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 27.
THOMPSON, H. and W. KELLY. 1975. Vegetable Crops. 5th ed. New York: Mc Grawhill
Book Co. Inc. New York. Pp. 79-99.
VAN BLOMMESTAIN, J. A. 1979. A Cultivation of Peas. Retrieved. September 4, 2012.
P. 234.
WARE, W. G. 1975. Producting Vegetable Crops. 2nd ed. The Interstate Printers and
Publications, Inc. P. 379.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013. Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea
(Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel, Pangasinan. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Franklin G. Bawang, MSc.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted at Lac-lac, San Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan from
October 2012 to January 2013 to evaluate the growth and yield performance of six different
varieties of garden pea and to identify the variety that is most suited at San Manuel,
Pangasinan.
Results revealed that although vegetative growth and yield of the six garden pea
evaluated were not significant, data reflected that garden pea pods harvested from Betag
variety had the heaviest total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare with a mean of
1.25 kg and 1.95 t/ha followed by pods obtained from Chinese garden pea (white) and
CGP-11 and CPG-13 varieties having the same means of 1.24 kg/plot and 1.92 t/ha. Plants
grown from CGP-110 produced pods having the lowest total yield with a mean of 1.13
kg/plot and 1.85 t/ha among the varieties evaluated.
Results also revealed that Betag variety obtained the highest return of investment
of 260.53% followed by the varieties Chinese Garden Pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13
with an ROI of 253.17%. The CGP-110 variety produced the lowest return of investment
of 242.14%.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Days to Seedling Emergence
The results presented in Table 1 shows that there were no significant statistical
differences observed with regards to the number of days from sowing to seedling
emergence of the six varieties of garden pea. However, numerical figures reveals that the
earliest to emerged were the varieties CGP-11, Betag, CGP-13, and CGP-110 with a
comparable means of 5 days while to Chinese garden pea (white) and Lapad varieties
having comparable means of 7 days took longer days to emerged.
Number of Days to Flowering
The number of days from sowing to flowering of the six different garden pea
varieties did not differ significantly as shown in Table 2. However, numerically, varieties
that flowered earlier were CGP-11, Betag, CGP-13, and CGP-110 with comparable means
of 39 days as compared to Chinese garden pea (white) and Lapad varieties having a
comparable means of 37 days. Since Chinese varieties are considered to have a maturity
period of 90-100 days (BSU Techno Guide for Garden Pea, 1982). Thus, peas grown in
an area having higher temperature would produce flower earlier than those grown in an
area having relatively lower temperature. This also collaborates with the findings of Dayag
(1980) that climatic requirements of garden pea production starts from October and extends
to January.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 1. Days to seedling emergence
VARIETY
MEAN
(Days)
Chinese garden pea (White)
7a
CGP-11
5a
Betag
5a
CGP-13
5a
CGP-110
5a
Lapad
7a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Table 2. Number of days to flowering
MEAN
VARIETY
(Days)
Chinese garden pea (White)
37a
CGP-11
37a
Betag
39a
CGP-13
37a
CGP-110
37a
Lapad
39a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Days to First Harvesting
As presented in Table 3, there were no significant differences observed on the numbers of
days to first harvesting of garden pea pods. However, pods that were harvested earlier were
from the varieties Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, CGP-13, and CGP-110 having
comparable means of 57 days. It was followed by the pods produced from Betag varieties
with a mean of 58 days while the pods obtained from Lapad variety with a mean of 59 days
attained the first harvesting stage after one day.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Number of Pods Per Cluster
The number of pods per cluster is presented in Table 4. Result shows that all the different
garden pea varieties evaluated used did not differ significantly. But numerical data shows
that the most number of pods was noted on Betag variety with a mean of 8.45 followed by
pods from Chinese garden pea (white) variety with mean of 8.15. The least number of pods
per cluster were obtained from the variety CGP-110 with a mean of 7.75.
Table 3. Days to first harvesting
MEAN
VARIETY
(Days)
Chinese garden pea (White)
57a
CGP-11
57a
Betag
58a
CGP-13
57a
CGP-110
57a
Lapad
59a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Table 4. Number of pods per cluster
VARIETY
MEAN
Chinese garden pea (White)
8.15a
CGP-11
8.05a
Betag
8.45a
CGP-13
7.95a
CGP-110
7.75a
Lapad
7.85a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Days to Maturity of Pods
Table 5 shows that there were no significant statistical differences on the number of days
to maturity of pods of the six garden pea varieties. Numerically, pods observed from
Chinese garden pea (white) and Betag variety were the last to reach maturity stage with a
mean of 78 days. Pods from the varieties CGP-11, CGP-13, CGP-110, and Lapad were
earlier to reach maturity stage with 74 days.
Length of Pods (cm)
Table 6 shows that there were highly significant differences observed with regards to the
pod length of six the varieties of garden pea. Betag variety produced the longest pods with
a mean of 7.17cm followed by CGP-13 with a mean of 6.81 cm. It was followed further by
Lapad variety but statistically comparable to CPG 11 variety with a mean of 6.45 and
6.47cm. The CGP-110 variety registered the shortest pod length with a mean of 5.99. The
results maybe due to the general observation that Betag variety produced long and large
pods.
Table 5. Days to maturity of pods
VARIETY
MEAN
Chinese garden pea (White)
78a
CGP-11
74a
Betag
78a
CGP-13
74a
CGP-110
74a
Lapad
74a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Weight of Marketable Pods (kg)
Table 7 shows that the weight of marketable pods among the garden pea varieties evaluated
were not statistically significant. However, numerical results indicated that pods from
Betag variety had the heaviest marketable weight having a mean of 0.98 kg. It was followed
by the pods grown from Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, and CGP-13 having the
same means of 0.96 kg. Pods obtained from the variety CGP-110 had the lowest marketable
yield of 0.93 kg. These differences in the weight of marketable pods maybe directly related
to the quality of seeds sown.
Table 6. Length of pods (cm)
MEAN
VARIETY
(cm)
Chinese garden pea (White)
6.21cd
CGP-11
6.47bc
Betag
7.17a
CGP-13
6.81b
CGP-110
5.99d
Lapad
6.45bc
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Table 7. Weight of marketable pods (kg)
MEAN
VARIETY
(kg)
Chinese garden pea (White)
0.96a
CGP-11
0.96a
Betag
0.98a
CGP-13
0.96a
CGP-110
0.93a
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Lapad
0.95a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Weight of Non-Marketable Pods (kg)
Likewise, results show that there were no significant differences obtained on the
weight of non-marketable pods between the six garden pea varieties tested as shown in
Table 8. Numerically however, pods gathered from Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11,
and Betag varieties had the heaviest weight of non-marketable pods. It was followed by
CGP-13 variety having a mean of 0.24 kg. Pods from CGP-110 and Lapad had the lowest
weight of non-marketable pods with a mean of 0.20 kg due to the higher pod defects. Small
seeds produced the smallest vines which correspondingly produced smaller pods especially
towards the tip of the vines which were classified as non-marketable.
Total Yield Per Plot (kg)
As presented in Table 9, the results showed that there were no significant
differences observed among the variety means. Nevertheless, data reflects that garden pea
pods harvested from Betag variety had the heaviest total yield per plot with a mean of 1.25
kg followed by pods obtained from Chinese garden pea (white) and CGP-11 varieties
having the same means of 1.24 kg/plot. Plants grown from CGP-110 produced pods having
the lowest total yield among the varieties.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 8. Weight of non-marketable pods (kg)
MEAN
VARIETY
(kg)
Chinese garden pea (White)
0.28a
CGP-11
0.28a
Betag
0.28a
CGP-13
0.24a
CGP-110
0.20a
Lapad
0.20a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Number of Picking
Table 10 shows that there were no significant differences observed among the varieties on
the number of picking. It indicated that all the six garden pea varieties had the same number
of pickings of 5 from the very first harvest up to the last harvest of pods.
Table 9. Total yield per plot (kg)
VARIETY
MEAN
(kg)
Chinese garden pea (White)
1.24a
CGP-11
1.24a
Betag
1.25a
CGP-13
1.19a
CGP-110
1.13a
Lapad
1.15a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 10. Number of picking
VARIETY
MEAN
Chinese garden pea (White)
5a
CGP-11
5a
Betag
5a
CGP-13
5a
CGP-110
5a
Lapad
5a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT.
Table 11. Computed Yield Per Hectare (t/ha)
Computed yield per hectare is presented in Table 11. The different varieties of
garden pea did not show any significant differences from each other. However, results
show that Betag variety obtained the highest computed yield of 1.95t/ha. Followed by
varieties Chinese garden pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13 all having equal means of
1.92t/ha. Lowest computed yield were produced from CGP-110 variety with a mean of
1.85t/ha.
Meteorological Data
Table 12 shows the climatological conditions gathered at WS admin meteorological station
located at San Roque dam during the period of the study.
Mean temperature (maximum) per month ranged from 26.7°C (January) to 27.4°C
(November). Mean relative humidity was high in the month of November (87%) and lowest
in the month of January (79%). There was no rain recorded in the month of November and
December. The sun rosed at the time of 6.02 and sunset at 6.07 during the study.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Table 11. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha)
MEAN
VARIETY
(t/ha)
Chinese garden pea (White)
1.92a
CGP-11
1.92a
Betag
1.95a
CGP-13
1.92a
CGP-110
1.85a
Lapad
1.90a
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMRT
Physiological Disorder
Curling of pods was observed during the harvesting stage of the six garden pea
varieties evaluated which are considered non-marketable pods.
Table 12. Meteorological data
Temperature (°C)
Day Length
Month
Relative
Rainfall
Humidity (%)
(mm)
Maximum Minimum
Sunrise
Sunset
November
87
27.4
19.0
0.00
6:03
6:06
December
84
27.0
18.4
1.80
6:04
6.07
January
79
26.7
18.0
0.00
6:00
6:09
Mean
83
27.0
18.47
0.6
6.02
6.07
Means with a common letter/s are not significantly different at 0.05% level of DMR
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 13 shows the cost and return analysis of the study. Result revealed that Betag
variety obtained the highest return of investment of 260.53% followed by the varieties
Chinese Garden Pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13 with an ROI of 253.17%. The CGP-
110 variety produced the lowest return of investment of 242.14%.
Table 13. Cost and return analysis
Chinese
CGP-
Particular
Garden Pea CGP-11 Betag CGP-13
Lapad
110
(White)
Yield (Kg)
14.40
14.40
14.70
14.40
13.95
14.25
Sales (Php)
216.00
216.00 220.50
216.00
209.25 213.75
Expenses (Php)
Seeds
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
14-14-14
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Chicken Manure
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
Trellis
-
-
-
-
-
-
Padan 50 SP
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cumulus
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
3.33
Labor Cost
Land Preparation
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
Planting
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
16.67
Thinning
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fertilizer application
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hilling up
-
-
-
-
-
-
Harvesting
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
8.33
Expenses (Php)
16.16
16.16
16.16
16.16
16.16
16.16
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Net Income (Php)
154.84
154.84 159.34
154.84
148.09 152.59
ROI (%)
253.17
253.17 260.53
253.17
242.14 249.49
RANK
2
2
1
2
4
3
*Note Selling Price = Php P150.00/kg
Figure 1. During planting
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Figure 2. During hilling-up
Figure 3. Flowering stage
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Figure 4. Harvesting the pods
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at Lac-lac, San Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan from
November 2012 to January 2013 to evaluate the growth and yield performance of six
different varieties of garden pea and to identify the varieties that are most adapted at San
Manuel, Pangasinan condition.
The number of days from sowing to seedling emergence, from sowing to flowering,
and days to maturity of pods of the six different garden pea varieties did not differ
significantly. However, numerically, varieties that emerged, flowered and matured earlier
were observed from the varieties CGP-11, Betag, CGP-13, and CGP-110 with comparable
means of 5 days to emerged, 39 days to flower and 74 days to reach maturity as compared
to Chinese garden pea (white) and Lapad varieties having comparable means of 7 days to
emerged, 37 days to flower, and 78 days to reach maturity.
Likewise, there were no significant differences observed on the numbers of days to
first harvesting of garden pea pods. However, pods that were harvested earlier were from
the varieties Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, CGP-13, and CGP-110 having
comparable means of 57 days. It was followed by the pods produced from Betag varieties
with a mean of 58 days while the pods obtained from Lapad variety with a mean of 59 days
attained the first harvesting stage after one day.
Results show that there were highly significant differences observed with regards to the
pod length of six the varieties of garden pea. Betag variety produced the longest pods with
a mean of 7.17 cm followed by CGP-13 with a mean of 6.81 cm. It was followed further
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
by Lapad variety but statistically comparable to CPG 11 variety with a mean of 6.45 and
6.47 cm. The CGP-110 variety registered the shortest pod length with a mean of 5.99 cm.
With regards to the weight of marketable and non-marketable pods among the garden pea
varieties evaluated were not statistically significant. However, numerical results indicated
that pods from Betag variety had the heaviest marketable and non-marketable weight with
a mean of 0.98 kg (marketable) and 0.28 kg (non-marketable). It was followed by the pods
grown from Chinese garden pea (white), CGP-11, and CGP-13 having the same means of
0.96 kg (marketable yield). Pods obtained from the variety CGP-110 and Lapad had the
lowest non-marketable yield of 0.20 kg.
Results showed that there were no significant differences observed among the variety
means with regards to the total yield per plot and computed yield per heactare.
Nevertheless, data reflects that garden pea pods harvested from Betag variety had the
heaviest total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare with a mean of 1.25 kg and
1.95 t/ha followed by pods obtained from Chinese garden pea (white) and CGP-11 and
CPG-13 varieties having the same means of 1.24 kg/plot and 1.92 t/ha. Plants grown from
CGP-110 produced pods having the lowest total yield with a mean of 1.13 kg/plot and 1.85
t/ha among the varieties evaluated.
Result revealed that Betag variety obtained the highest return of investment of 260.53%
followed by the varieties Chinese Garden Pea (White), CGP-11, and CGP-13 with an ROI
of 253.17%. The CGP-110 variety produced the lowest return of investment of 242.14%.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that based on the results presented, Betag variety produced
slightly higher number and length of pods per plant, with heavier marketable yield,
produced the higher computed yield and highest return on investment among the varieties
evaluated.
Recommendation
Although no significant differences were observed among the various varieties
evaluated, it is therefore recommended as per the data obtained on the cost of return
analysis, number of pods per plant, length of pods, weight of marketable pods and
computed yield per hectare, Betag variety is suitable garden pea production at Lac-lac, San
Roque, San Manuel, Pangasinan.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
CADA, E. C. and G. W. COOKE. 1981. Factors Affecting Yield and Quality of Vegetables
Agricultural Information Division. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Diliman, Q. C. Vol. 3 (6). P. 6.
CHAPMAN, R. S. and P. L CARTER. 1976. Crop Production. Montana State University.
W. Freeman and Company: San Francisco. P. 374.
DAYAG, C. 1980. Garden Pea. The world Book of Encyclopedia 3; Printers Hill
Company. P. 29.
DUKE, J. A. 1981. Hand book of legumes of world economic importance. Retrieved.
September 1, 2012. P. 37.
HARTMAN, H. C. and KESTER. 1975. Plant Propagation Principles. Canada: John Wily
and Sons, Inc. Pp. 297-298.
KENNETH, W. B. 1979. Horticulture Enterprise. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippin Cott. Co. P.
266-267.
MUEHLBAUER, F. J. and A. A. TULLU. 1997. Alternative Field Crops Manual.
Retrieved. Sept. 12, 2012. P. 324.
PURSEGLOVE, J. W. 1968. Tropical Crops Dicotyedons. Singapore: Boon Hwa Printing
Company. P. 312.
RASCO, E. T. JR and V. D. AMANTE. 1994. Sweet potato variety evaluation. Volume 1.
Southeast Asian Program for Potato Research and Development. Lima Peru. Pp. 42-43.
SAUER, J. D. 1993. Historical geography of crop plants. Retrieved. September 4, 2012. P.
415.
SHRESTA, M. L. 1989. Varietal Response of Bush Beans to Fertilization and Inoculation.
MS Thesis. BSU. La Trinidad Benguet. P. 3.
SOLANO, M. E. 1983. Yield of Six Tomato Variety under Ambuklao condition. BS.
Thesis Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 27.
THOMPSON, H. and W. KELLY. 1975. Vegetable Crops. 5th ed. New York: Mc Grawhill
Book Co. Inc. New York. Pp. 79-99.
VAN BLOMMESTAIN, J. A. 1979. A Cultivation of Peas. Retrieved. September 4, 2012.
P. 234.
WARE, W. G. 1975. Producting Vegetable Crops. 2nd ed. The Interstate Printers and
Publications, Inc. P. 379.
Varietal Evaluation of Six Garden Pea (Pisum sativum) Varieties Under San Miguel,
Pangasinan | WALANG, LEMUEL D. APRIL 2013