BIBLIOGRAPHY


PAQUITO JAEDARHLYN T. APRIL 2011. Comparison of Fermented
and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on Potato (Solanum tuberusom).
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Wilma L. Marquez, MSc.

ABSTRACT

The experiment was conducted at the Organic Demo Farm, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad Benguet from November 2010 to February 2011 to compare
the efficacy of wild sunflower extracts on the growth and yield of potato; to determine
the best rate of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts for fertigating potato; to
determine the more efficient kind and best rate of wild sunflower extract and, to assess
the most economical kind and rate of wild sunflower extract.
Rates of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts significantly affected the
total number, weight, and yield of classified potato tubers. Application of 2 tbsp/L
water of formulated fermented and fresh wild sunflower extract had significant effects
on the yield and total marketable weight of potato tubers.
On the other hand, the kind of wild sunflower extracts gave no significant
differences on the physical and chemical properties of the soil as well as growth and
yield parameters.

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS











Page

Bibliography...........................................................................................................
i
Abstract..................................................................................................................
i
Table of Contents...................................................................................................
ii

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................
1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................................
4
MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................
9
RESULT AND DISCUSSION..............................................................................
17
Chemical Analysis of
Wild Sunflower Extract.....................................................................................
17
Soil Physical Analysis.......................................................................................
17
Bulk Density of the Soil
After Harvest.....................................................................................................
17

Water Holding Capacity the Soil......................................................................
19
Soil Chemical Properties...................................................................................
20
Soil pH..............................................................................................................
20

Organic Matter of the Soil After Harvest..........................................................
22
Total Nitrogen Content of the Soil
After Harvest.....................................................................................................
23

Growth and Yield Parameters..................................................................…….
25
Plant Vigor..................................................................................................…..
25
Late Blight (LB) Infection
(30, 45 and 60 DAP)………………………………….....................................
27

Total Number of Classified Tubers

---

(S, M, and B)………………………….............................................................
30

Weight of Classified Tubers
(S, M, and B)………………………………………………………………..…
31

Total Yield…………………………………………………………………..
32

Dry matter Content of Potato…………………………………………………
39
.
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)……………………………………………
40

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION,
RECOMMENDATION………………………………………………………… 43

Summary…………………………………………………………………….
43

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………
43

Recommendation……………………………………………………………..
44

LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………………….
45

APPENDIX
A. Chemical Analysis
of Wild Sunflower Extract……………………………………………………
48

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………
49


 

---

 1
 
 
INTRODUCTION

Potato is an important cash crop and livelihood of farmers in Benguet. It is
believed to have originated somewhere between Mexico and Chile. It is one of the
vegetables among cabbage, red beet, spinach, onions and Brussels sprouts that respond
most to nitrogen. Potato is an outstanding source of Vitamin C, A, B1 (thiamin) and
Riboflavin.
Its young sprouts develop best at soil temperatures of about 75 degrees Fahrenheit
but later growth is best at a soil temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit and completely
inhibited at 84 degrees Fahrenheit. Long days, high temperature and high amounts of
nitrogen favor the heavy growth of potato (Martin and Leonard, 1970).
It has been a long time practice of most farmers in Benguet to use pesticide and
chemical fertilizers in producing potatoes. Chemical fertilizers are used as a means of
supplementing the food supplies in the soil. However effects of long time use of pesticide
and chemical fertilizer application, causes depleted nutrients and unfavorable soil
conditions. Destruction of living things including plants, animals, and human beings
existed. One way of saving the land from unproductively and less fertile is by conversion
to organic farming.

Organic farming depends on appropriate crop rotations, green manuring,
recycling of farm manure and other ecological ways of building up soil fertility and
productivity. It intentionally seeks sound conservation and quality enhancement of the
soil, water, air and genetic resources through scientific method. The ecological
integration of diversified farm components and farming system in the absence of
synthetic chemical inputs exemplifies an organic farm (Tanacio, 2004).
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

2
 
Using plant resources around the farm is helpful in organic farming. One example
of this is the utilization of wild sunflower for fertigating crops. It is rich in nitrogen which
is most common nutrient applied by fertigation. Other nutrient elements applied more or
less frequently include phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, zinc, and iron.
Fertigation (contraction of fertilization and irrigation) is the technique of
supplying dissolved fertilizer to crops through an irrigation system. When combined with
an efficient irrigation system both nutrients and water can be manipulated and managed
to obtain the maximum possible yield of marketable production from a given quantity of
these inputs (Pile, undated). With the fertigation system over feeding, waste and run-off,
and stripes in the lawn from uneven applications will be eliminated.
Liquid fertilizers play an important role in plant growth. It gives a very important
source of mineral elements and food for the plant. It has been extensively used in
irrigated lands for direct application to crops. Donahue (1970) stressed that liquid
fertilizers was known for many years where plants are able to absorbed essential elements
through their leaves. The absorption takes place through the stomata of the leaves and
through the epidermis. Movement of elements is usually faster through the stomata but
the total absorption is as great through the epidermis.
This study has the following objectives:
a. To compare the efficacy of wild sunflower extracts on the growth and yield of
potato.
b. To determine the best rate of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts for
fertigating potato.

 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

3
 
c. To determine the more efficient kind and best rate of wild sunflower extract.
d. To assess the most economical kind and rate of wild sunflower extract.
The study was conducted at Organic Demo Farm, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet from December 2010- February 2011.































 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

  4
 
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Potato is an example of a crop in which irrigation can be used to manipulate
development and yield in a number of ways. Thus where early production is the aim,
irrigating before tuber initiation to hasten the vegetative growth is worthwhile (Spedding,
1981).
Moorby
et. al (1975) as cited by Spedding (1981) stated that irrigating during the
period of tuber expansion, to ensure that the stomata remain wide open and that there is
no premature leaf senescence, will maintain high photosynthetic rates and enable good
yields to be obtained.

Organic Production

Organic production is the conservation and maintenance of environment quality.
Foods are safe to consume and contains significantly lower levels of pesticide residues
than conventionally produced. Organic production relies heavily upon crop and soil
management practices that aid water infiltration, resist soil erosion, improve soil tilt and
productivity, recycle organic waste and reduce pollution of the soil and water (USDA,
2000).

Bawang (2009) cited salient advantages of organic farming namely: cutting the
cost of farm inputs; making use of waste products; balance nutrient source; improvement
of the soil properties; pest and disease control; consumer demand for organically produce
crops, thus enhance better market price; enhance sustainable soil productivity; promote
biodiversity, none use of genetically modified organism (GMO) and minimize food crops
and environmental pollution.
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

5
 
Organic Fertilizer Materials

Organic materials, whether as farmyard manure, slurry, compost, grass turf, straw,
or other crop residues, are beneficial in improving the physical, properties of the soil and
it’s moisture retention capacity, and also, by supplying a wide range of plant nutrients in
unpredictable amounts (Hignett,1985).
Animal
manures. Animal manures are high in nitrogen. Therefore, when it is
mixed with a carbon material, such as chopped leaves or hay, they produced nitrogen-
rich compost that can be used as a fertilizer. Dried manure is inclined to be richer in most
major nutrients than fresh manure. Animal manures vary in nutrient rich. Chicken manure
is among the most nutrient- rich (Pile, 1992). Manure contains many essential plant
nutrients especially N, P, K as well as some trace elements, not generally found in the
chemical fertilizers. Animal wastes help to build up and maintain soil fertility and tilth,
and to cut down on erosion by Jones (1982).
Wild sunflower. Wild sunflower has been known to be a good source of organic
N, besides being free; it is readily available on the farm. Sunflower as organic fertilizer
insures vigorous growth of plants and influences nutrient absorption due to its role in
granulation thereby improving the physical and chemical properties of the soil (Brady,
1974) as cited by Durante (1982).
Malucay (2008), noted the analysis of fresh wild sunflowers done in the
laboratory by Pandosen (1986) showed that the N, P, K, Ca, and Mg components were
3.76%, 0.0077%, 4.44%, 1.90%, and 0.39% respectively. On the other hand, Palaleo,
(1978) as cited by Durante (1982), chemical analysis of composted wild sunflower are as
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

6
 
follows: 70.2 me/ 100g compost (CEC), 0.38% N, 96.60ppm P, 6567.5 ppm K, 7.90%
OM, 3206.0 ppm Ca, and a pH of 6.89.

Importance of Fertigation

Fertigation allows the landscape to absorb up to 90% of the applied nutrients,
while granular or dry fertilizer applications typically result in absorption rates of 10% to
40% (Fertigation Systems, Undated). Plaster (1997), stated that a third way to fertilized a
growing crop is injecting fertilizer into irrigation water called fertigation. It works best in
sprinkler/ trickle irrigation but also be used with surface irrigation. Liquid application is
the most commonly used of post plant surface applied-systems. Benefits include ease and
uniformity of application, low labor requirements and ability to automate the system
(Joiner, 1981).
The primary purpose of applying fertilizers in the form of spray is to overcome
quickly some particular mineral deficiency that would impair the growth and yield of the
plant. The most effective spray application must be repeated at a short interval while the
plants are still growing (McVickar, 1970) cited by Guanzo (1982).However, Teuscher
and Adler (1960) cited by Bagyan (1980) found out that fertilizer sprays are useful in
helping weak plants to become established in maintaining vigorous growth of vegetables
during dry seasons, but they can never actually take the place of root feeding and must be
considered as supplemental.
Donahue (1970) stated that most of the 16 essential elements for plant growth can
be absorbed by any plants when they are sprayed in the same part. N, P, K, Mg, Ca, S, Bo,
Co, and Mo, has successfully used to supply the nutrients for plant growth by applying
them as foliar sprays to the leaves (Zulueta, 1982).
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

7
 
Uses of Liquid Fertilizers

Edmond (1964), as cited by Gamboa (1977) reported that foliar sprays are used to
correct a deficiency of some essential elements in a relatively short time to supply the
raw materials which is if applied to soils, some reasons or other become unavailable to
plants. Lockhart, et al (1975) stated that compared with solids, liquid fertilizers are easier,
quicker and cheaper to handle and apply. A further increase in their use must be
considered inevitable. Liquid fertilizers are simple, non-pressurized solutions of normal
solid fertilizer raw materials.
Peligrina
et al (1992) reported that Mr. Jose Barnachea, a farmer from Sibaan, Sta.
Catalina applies 20 bags of fermented manure in two applications from transplanting of
cabbage to harvesting. He used to add chemical fertilizer for his cabbage but he’s no
longer using any instead he use fermented manures. With this technique, according to
him, he can save money for labor and chemical fertilizer but still have good harvest.
Tswaran (1973) stated by Guanzo (1982), revealed that application of about 43 to80
kilogram of phosphoric acid/ha trough foliar application gives a greater profit than the
soil application alone of the same quantity of fertilizers.

Tomin (2006) as cited by Boltican (2008) concluded that studying potato
fertilized with liquefied chicken manure and complete fertilizer (14-14-14) at the rate of
6L fertilizer solution plus 16L water ( 1 to 4 sacks 14-14-14) can be the best rate of
fertilizer for the growth and yield of potato.
Follet
et al (1981) found out that anhydrous ammonia as liquid fertilizer is a
feasible source of nitrogen but it also revealed that precipitation can occur when
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

8
 
ammonia is injected into water containing large quantities of dissolved calcium and
magnesium salts due to increase in pH of the soil.





















 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

  9
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials
The materials used in the experiment were potato tubers (cv “raniag”), fermented
and fresh wild sunflower extracts, composted chicken dung, drums, watering cans, grub
hoes, and 1.5L plastic containers, bolo or shredder and recording materials.

Methodology
An area of 165m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into 30 plots measuring
1m x 5m. Before land preparation, soil samples were collected for the initial and final soil
physical and chemical properties of the experimental area. The samples for analysis were
air dried at the Department of Soil Science Extension laboratory for analysis.

Cultural management. Composted chicken dung at a rate of 10 tons/ha was added
to all plants and was incorporated in the soil before planting. Potato tubers with two
sprouted eyes were planted at a distance of 30cm X 30cm between hills and rows at a
depth of 2.54cm. Two weeks after plant emergence of tubers, hilling up was done. Zero
chemical spraying was strictly implemented. All recommended cultural management
practices like irrigation; weeding and pest and disease control were done to ensure plant
growth and development of potato plants.

Watering was done twice a week after emergence. For the pest and diseases,
organic farming practices were applied like manual picking of insects and removing the
blight attacked leaves.

Preparation of fresh wild sunflower extract. Fresh wild sunflowers of vegetative
stage with length of 30 inches were collected. These were chopped or shredded for faster
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

10
 
extraction. It was weighed and 68 kilograms of chopped wild sunflower was placed in a
200L- capacity drum. Then it was covered with plastic sheet. After two weeks, the liquid
extract was collected and put into 1.5L containers (Figure 1).

Preparation of fermented wild sunflower extract. Eighty- seven kilograms of
chopped wild sunflowers were collected and put into 200L capacity drum (Figure 2). It
was added with 20L water, 1 L IMO (Indigenous Microorganism) and 1 L LAS (Lacto
bacillus acid). After a week of extraction, the liquid extract was collected and then
fermented. From the wild sunflower extract, 3L of it was added with 1 kg sugar and 2tsps
FPJ seaweed (Tinoyan, 2010).

Fertigation with wild sunflower extracts. Application of fermented and fresh wild
sunflower extracts was done once a week following the rates per treatment. The rates of
fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts were based on the recommended fertigation
use that is 1tbsp/L water (Tinoyan, personal communication). From this recommended
rate, lower and higher rates were formulated. The extract was measured and prepared in
watering cans before fertigating it overhead on potato plants. Twenty- four liters of the
diluted solution were applied per plot. Fertigation started two weeks after emergence and
applied weekly thereafter. Fertigation was applied five times only because potato plants
were harvested (68 DAP) before maturity due to severe late blight infection, an effect of
climate change. Potato var. raniag has a maturity of 90 days.
The design used in the experiment was Randomized Complete Block Design in
factorial arrangements with three replications. The factors studied were: kind of wild
sunflower extract served as Factor A and the rates of wild sunflower extracts applied as
Factor B.
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

11
 

Figure 1. Chopped wild sunflower applied with IMO for fermentation



Figure 2. Chopped wild sunflower extract applied with LAS for fermentation
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

12
 
Factor A. (Kind of Extract)


Factor B. (Rates of Extract)
F1= Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract

T1= Control
F2= Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract

T2= 0.5 tbsp / L water
T3= 1 tbsp / L water
T4=1.5 tbsp/ L water
T5= 2 tbsp / L water












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

13
 


Figure 3. LAS and IMO


Figure 4. Chopped wild sunflower for fresh extract placed in a drum and covered

 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

14
 
The data gathered were:
A. Chemical analysis of wild sunflower extracts

Samples of fermented and fresh wild sunflower were brought to the Natural
Sciences and Research Unit in Saint Louis University for the analysis of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium contents.

B. Soil Physical Analysis
1. Bulk density of the soil (g/cm3). This was obtained using the core method.
2. Water holding capacity (%). It was determined through saturation method,
wherein core was filled first with half submerged in water to be saturated through
capillarity. The formula was:


%WHC=
Weight of Saturated Soil–Weight of Oven Dry Soil x 100
Weight
of
oven
dry
soil


C. Soil Chemical Analysis
1. Initial and final soil pH. This was determined before and after harvesting using
1:2.5 CaCl2 solution by electrometric method.
2. OM content of the soil (%). Organic matter of the soil was analyzed using
Walkley -Black Method.
3. Total Nitrogen content of the soil (%). This was computed by multiplying the
factor 0.05 to the % OM content of the soil.

D. Growth and Yield Parameters

1. Plant vigor. Plant vigor of the plant was rated using the following scale:



 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

15
 
Scale


Description


1
very
vigorous


2
vigorous


3
slightly
vigorous

4
not
vigorous

2. Pest infestation and disease infection. This was observed in 10 sample plants
per plot using the following rating scale at 30 and 60 DAP (Cho, 1987) cited by Menes
(2010).
Scale Description


Remarks

1 No
infection
High
resistance

2

1-25% of the total plant

Mild resistance

3

26-50% of the total plant Moderate
resistance

4

51-75% of the total plant

Susceptible

5

76- 100% of the total plant
Very Susceptible
3. Number of classified tubers (B, M and S). Classified tubers as big, medium and
small were counted and recorded per plot.

4. Weight of classified tubers (kg/m2). Classified tubers as big, medium and small
were weighed per plot and their corresponding weights were recorded.
5. Total yield (kg/m2). Weight of the marketable and non-marketable tubers.
.
6. Dry matter yield. This was determined by oven drying sliced tubers (30g) of
each different size per treatment for three days at 70 degrees Celsius. It was computed
using the formula:
%
DMY
=
FW-
ODW x 100





ODW
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

16
 

E. Return on Cash Expense (ROCE). Production cost, gross and net income were
determined and computed using the formula:


ROCE (%) = Gross sales- Total Expenses x
100
Total Expense




















 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

17
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Chemical Analysis of Fermented
and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract


Chemical analysis of fermented wild sunflower extract with indigenous
microorganisms is shown in Table 1. Result reveals that the nitrate-nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium content of fermented wild sunflower extract are 12.5ppm, 100ppm and
200ppm while the fresh wild sunflower extracts are 0.5ppm, 37.5ppm and 200ppm
respectively. Fermented wild sunflower extracts has higher nitrogen and phosphorus than
fresh wild sunflower extract but both have the same potassium content.

Soil Physical Analysis

Bulk Density of the Soil

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. There are no significant differences
on the bulk density of the soil as influenced by kind of wild sunflower extracts (Table 2).
However, the bulk density was improved from the initial Db of 1.54 g/cm3. The decrease
in the Db of the soil could be attributed to blanket application of chicken manure that
added organic matter in the soil and cultivation that enhances microbial activity.

Table 1. Chemical analysis of fermented wild sunflower extract







NO3-

P2O5
K2O
WILD
SUNFLOWER
EXTRACT
(ppm)
(ppm)
(ppm)



Fermented
12.5
100
200
Fresh
0.5
37.5
200



 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

18
 
Table 2. Soil bulk density as affected by rates of wild sunflower extracts

TREATMENT







Db











(g/cm3)
Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract
Fermented
Wild
Sunflower
Extract
1.08

Fresh
Wild
Sunflower
Extract 1.07

Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract
Control 1.09

0.5
tbsp/
liter
water
1.07

1
tbsp/
liter
water
1.10

1.5
tbsp/
liter
water
1.05

2
tbsp/
liter
water
1.06

Factor
A
x
Factor
B


ns

Initial
Db
1.54
*Means are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT.
ns = not significant

Wild sunflower extracts fertigated on potato plants served as food to microbes for faster
decomposition and enhances porosity of the soil. Brady and Weil (2008) stated that solid
particles of fine-textured soils tend to be organized in porous granules, especially if
adequate organic matter is present. This ensures high total pore space but low bulk
density.

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extract. Bulk density of the soil was
not significantly affected by the rates of application of the formulated wild sunflower
extracts. However, an improvement of Db in all applied plants was computed. This
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

19
 
conforms with the report of Pandosen (1986) that a decrease in bulk density of the soil is
realized when it is applied with fresh wild sunflower and sunflower- based compost. This
indicates that the application of sunflower whether as compost or liquid fertilizer
improves the bulk density of the soil.
Interaction
effect. Result shows no significant interaction between the kind and
rates of wild sunflower extracts on the bulk density of the soil at harvest.

Water Holding Capaciy of the Soil (WHC)


Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. The water holding capacity of the
soil was not significantly affected by the fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts.
However, the soil fertigated with fermented wild sunflower extract had a higher total
water holding capacity.

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. Table 3 shows no significant
difference on the water holding capacity of the soil as affected by the application of
formulated fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts. The WHC value ranging from
63.3 to 65.8% was improved from the initial WHC of 53.7%. Sunflower as organic
fertilizer insures vigorous plant due to its role in granulation thereby improving the
physical and chemical properties of soil (Durante, 1982).
Interaction
effect. Result shows no significant interaction between the formulated
liquid fertilizer and the rates of application on the water holding capacity of the soil.






 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

20
 
Table 3. Water holding capacity of the soil as affected by wild sunflower extracts

TREATMENT








WHC











(%)
Kind
of
Wild
Sunflower
Extract

Fermented
Wild
Sunflower
Extract
67.3
Fresh
Wild
Sunflower
Extract 65.8
Rates
of
Wild
Sunflower
Extract

Control 66.7

0.5
tbsp/
liter
water
66.7

1
tbsp/
liter
water
63.3
1.5
tbsp/
liter
water
68.5

2
tbsp/
liter
water
67.6

Factor
A
x
Factor
B


ns

Initial
52.71
*Means are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT.
ns = not significant


Soil Chemical Properties

Soil pH


Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. No significant difference on the soil
pH as affected by the kind of wild sunflower extracts was observed. Nevertheless, an
increase from the initial of 5.12 was observed which could be due to the organic materials
applied (chicken manure and wild sunflower extract).



 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

21
 
Table 4. Soil pH as affected by wild sunflower extracts


TREATMENT







pH











Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract

Fermented
Wild
Sunflower
Extract
5.92


Fresh
Wild
Sunflower
Extract 5.91

Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract
Control 5.89

0.5
tbsp/
liter
water
5.90

1
tbsp/
liter
water
5.92

1.5
tbsp/
liter
water
5.91

2
tbsp/
liter
water
5.95

Factor
A
x
Factor
B
ns

Initial
5.12

*Means are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT.
ns = not significant


Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. There were no significant differences
on the soil pH as affected by the rates of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts.
However it was observed that as the rate increased, the pH increased.

Interaction
effect. No significant interaction was observed between the kind of
wild sunflower extracts and rates of application on the pH of the soil. Soil pH from
treatment combinations has almost the same values.


 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

22
 
Organic Matter of the Soil

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. Organic matter content of the soil
was not affected by kind of wild sunflower extracts (Table 5). However, a higher mean
OM value was registered by the plots fertigated with fermented compared to the fresh
wild sunflower extract. In addition, the initial OM content of the soil (3.34%) was
slightly increased.

Table 5. Organic matter content of the soil as affected by wild sunflower extracts


TREATMENT







OM











(%)

Kind
of
Wild
Sunflower
Extract

Fermented
Wild
Sunflower
Extract
3.78
Fresh
Wild
Sunflower
Extract 3.54

Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract
Control 4.00

0.5
tbsp/
liter
water
3.45

1
tbsp/
liter
water
3.92


1.5
tbsp/
liter
water
3.43


2
tbsp/
liter
water
3.50

Factor
A
x
Factor
B
ns

Initial
3.34

*Means are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT.
ns = not significant
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

23
 

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extract. The organic matter content of
the soil was not significantly affected by the rates of application of fermented and fresh
wild sunflower extracts. It was noted however, that the final organic matter content of the
soil increased from the initial 3.34 to a range of 3.43- 4% due to the composted chicken
manure and wild sunflower extract applied.
Interaction
effect. Statistically, no significant interaction was obtained between
formulated liquid fertilizer and rates of application on the organic matter content of the
soil at harvest. However it was observed that 1.5 tbsp/liter water of fermented wild
sunflower extract had higher organic matter content while the control ranked highest in
fresh wild sunflower extracts.

Total Nitrogen Content of the Soil After Harvest

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. Nitrogen content of the soil was not
affected by the kind of wild sunflower extracts. As seen on the result, no significant
differences were observed on the nitrogen content of soil between those treated with
fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts. Nitrogen content of the soil treated with
fermented extract however slightly higher than those fertigated with fresh wild sunflower
extract.

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. The rates of applied fermented
and fresh wild sunflower extracts did not significantly affect the nitrogen content of the
soil. The computed nitrogen content of the soil at harvest was equal and not far from the
initial which is 0.18%.



 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

24
 
Table 6. Total nitrogen content of the soil as affected by wild sunflower extracts

TREATMENT







N










(%)

Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract
Fermented
Wild
Sunflower
Extract
0.19
Fresh
Wild
Sunflower
Extract 0.18
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract

Control 0.20

0.5
tbsp/
liter
water
0.17
1
tbsp/
liter
water
0.20
1.5
tbsp/
liter
water
0.17

2
tbsp/
liter
water
0.18

Factor
A
x
Factor
B


ns
Initial
0.18
* Means are not significantly different at 5% level using DMRT.
ns = not significant
Interaction
effect. Result show that there is no significant interaction between the
kind and rates of wild sunflower extract on the organic matter content of the soil at
harvest.









 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

25
 
Growth and Yield Parameters


Plant Vigor

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. Plant vigor as affected by the kind of
wild sunflower extract is presented in Table 7. There are no significant differences on the
utilization of fermented and fresh extracts as liquid fertilizer for potato. Plants however
were very vigorous at 30 DAP. Figure 5 and 6 shows the plant stand of potatoes.

Table 7. Plant vigor as affected by wild sunflower extracts (30 DAP)

TREATMENT





PLANT
VIGOR










(%)


Kind
of
Wild
Sunflower
Extract

Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract




1.20
Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract




1.27
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract
Control







1.5
0.5 tbsp/ liter water






1.17
1 tbsp/ liter water






1.30
1.5 tbsp/ liter water






1.00
2 tbsp/ liter water






1.17
Factor A x Factor B






ns
*Means are not significantly different at 5% level using DMRT.


ns = not significant
Plant vigor rating: 1- very vigorous
2- vigorous


3- Slightly vigorous
4- not vigorous


 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

26
 

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. Plant vigor of potato was not
significantly affected by the rates of applied wild sunflower extracts (Table 7). It was
observed that the control plants was least vigorous than plants treated with wild
sunflower extracts. The most vigorous plants were observed from those fertigated with
1.5tbsp/L water of wild sunflower extract.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction was noted between the kind and rates
of wild sunflower extracts on plant vigor.



Figure 5. Overview of potato plants (23 DAP)
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

27
 


Figure 6. Overview of potato plants (26 DAP)

Late Blight (LB) Infection (30, 45 and 60 DAP)

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. Late blight infection as affected by
the kind of wild sunflower extracts is presented in Table 8. There is no significant effect
of the kind of wild sunflower extract on the late blight infection rating. The result implies
that the kind of extract fertigated has no bearing on late blight infection. It can be
observed that the late blight infection progress from the rating of almost 2 at 30 DAP to
81-100 % (rating of 5 at 60 DAP).

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. Late blight infection of potato
was not significantly affected by the rates of applied fermented and fresh wild sunflower
extracts. Blight infection rating progressed from 30 DAP to 60 DAP. However, at 40
DAP late blight infection rating was slightly lower as the rate of wild sunflower extract
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

28
 
Table 8. Late blight infection as affected by wild sunflower extracts (%)

TREATMENT




30 DAP
40 DAP 60 DAP



Kind
of
Wild
Sunflower
Extract

Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract

1.84
2.79
4.80
Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract

1.86
2.87
4.87
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract
Control




1.90
2.97
4.80
0.5 tbsp/ liter water



1.82
2.94
4.80
1 tbsp/ liter water



1.78
2.82
4.84
1.5 tbsp/ liter water



1.85
2.7

4.82
2 tbsp/ liter water



1.90
2.72
4.93
Factor A x Factor B



ns

ns

ns

*Means are not significantly different at 5% level using DMRT.
ns= not significant

Disease rating: Ten sample plants were rated as:
1=
1-20%
infestation
2=
21-40%
infestation
3=
41-60%
infestation
4=
61-80%
infestation
5=
81-100%
infestation

was increased to 1.5tbsp/L water (2.7).

Interaction
effect. Result show no significant interaction between the kind and
rates of wild sunflower extracts on plant vigor. Based on different times of disease
observation, late blight affected potato severely 60 days after planting. Figures 7 and 8
shows the infected potato plants.
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

29
 


Figure 7. Overview of potato plants attacked by late blight 30 DAP


Figure 8. Overview of potato plants attacked by late blight 45 DAP
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

30
 
Total Number of Classified Tubers (S, M, and B)

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. Number of each tuber classification
and the total number of classified potato tubers as affected by kind of wild sunflower
extracts are shown in Table 9. Results show that there was no significant mean difference
between the fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts on the number of small, medium,
big tuber sizes and the total number of potato.

Table 9. Total number of classified tubers- small, medium and big as affected by kind of
wild sunflower extracts

TREATMENT


SMALL MEDIUM BIG TOTAL


Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract



Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract 51.40 36.33 16.67 104.40
Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract
48.87
35.20
18.47 102.53
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract



Control



34.17d 26.00c 7.83b
68.00d
0.5 tbsp/ liter water

37.33c 26.67c 11.33b 75.00c
1 tbsp/ liter water

49.50b 37.33b 15.83b 102.67b
1.5 tbsp/ liter water

64.67a 45.67a 28.17a 138.5a
2 tbsp/ liter water

65.00a 43.17a 24.67a 132.83
Factor A x Factor B


ns
ns
ns
ns
*Means within a column are not significantly different at 5% level using DMRT.
ns= not significant





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

31
 

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. Rates of application of
fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts significantly affected the number of small,
medium and big potato tubers and the total number of marketable tubers. Based on the
results, it was noted that as the rate was increased, the number of tubers also increased.
The highest rate of 2 tbsp/liter water had the highest total number of small tubers while
the control and lowest rate of 0.5 tbsp/liter water produced the least. This trend was the
same in the total number of classified tubers.
Interaction
effect. There was no interaction effect between the kind of extract and
rates of application on the total number of small, medium and big potato tubers.

Weight of Classified Tubers (S, M, and B)

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extract. Weight per classified tubers (small,
medium and big) as affected by the rates of application of fermented and fresh wild
sunflower extract is presented in Table 10. There are no significant differences on the
mean weight of classified tubers as can be noted in the similar values between kinds and
rates of extracts.

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. Weight of small, medium and
big potato tubers was highly affected by the different rates of application of fermented
and fresh wild sunflower extracts applied (Table 10). Similar with the result on the
number of classified potato tubers, weight of small and medium potato had increased as
the rates are increased. Likewise, for big potato, tuber weight was increased as the rate
increased to 1.5tbsp/L water then decreased at 2.0tbsp/L water.



 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

32
 
Table 10. Weight of classified tubers- small, medium and big affected by wild sunflower
extracts (kg/5m2)

TREATMENT SMALL MEDIUM
BIG








_______ (kg/5m2) ______

Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract



Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract

0.43
0.81
0.39
Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract

0.43 0.73
0.38
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract



Control




0.28d
0.49c
0.27d
0.5 tbsp/ liter water



0.31d 0.58c
0.32c
1 tbsp/ liter water



0.40c
0.77b
0.35c
1.5 tbsp/ liter water



0.55b
1.03a
0.54b
2 tbsp/ liter water



0.60a
1.08a
0.45a
Factor
A
x
Factor
B
ns
ns
ns

*Means within a column are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT.
ns= not significant

Interaction
effect. No significant interaction was observed between the fermented
and fresh wild sunflower extracts and the rates of application on the total weight of
classified tubers.

Total Yield

Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extracts. No significant mean differences
observed on the total yield of potato tubers between potato plants fertigated with wild
sunflower extracts (Table 11). Although plants fertigated with fermented wild sunflower
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

33
 
Table 11. Total yield of potato tubers as affected by wild sunflower extracts (kg/5m2)

TREATMENT TOTAL NON
TOTAL
MARKET-
MARKET-
YIELD






ABLE
ABLE






YIELD
YIELD

Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract



Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract
1.63
0.44
2.07
Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract

1.58 0.36
1.94
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract






Control
1.04d
0.48
1.51c
0.5 tbsp/ liter water


1.20c 0.28
1.48c
1 tbsp/ liter water


1.53b
0.42
1.94b
1.5 tbsp/ liter water


2.13a
0.37
2.50a
2 tbsp/ liter water


2.13a
0.48 2.60a
Factor
A
x
Factor
B
ns
ns
ns

* Means within a column are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT.
ns = not significant

extract produced slightly higher marketable tubers, the difference however, was not
significant.

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. Figures 11 to 20 shows the
potato tubers from the different treatments. Total weight of small, medium and big potato
tubers was significantly affected by rates of application of fermented and fresh wild
sunflower extracts. The higher the rates of wild sunflower extracts, the higher the tuber
yield.
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

34
 


Figure 9. Tuber yield of potato cv raniag gathered from control





Figure 10. Tuber yield of potato gathered from plants fertigated with 0.5tbsp/L
water of fermented wild sunflower extract
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

35
 


Figure 11. Tuber yield of potato fertigated with 1tbsp/L water of fermented wild
sunflower extract





Figure 12. Tuber yield of potato tubers fertigated with 1.5tbsp/L water of
fermented wild sunflower extract
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

36
 


Figure 13. Tuber yield of potato fertigated with 2tbsp/L water of fermented wild
sunflower extract






Figure 14. Tuber yield of potato fertigated gathered from control
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

37
 



Figure 15. Tuber yield of potato fertigated with 0.5tbsp/L water of fresh wild
sunflower extract





Figure 16. Tuber yield of potato fertigated with 1tbsp/L water of fresh wild
sunflower extract
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

38
 



Figure 17. Tuber yield of potato fertigated with 1.5tbsp/L water of fresh wild
sunflower extract





Figure 18. Tuber yield of potato fertigated with 2tbsp/L water of fresh wild
sunflower extract
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

39
 
The trend in the marketable and total tuber yield revealed that fertigation of even the
lowest rate of 0.5 tbsp/L water to potato plants significantly increased tuber yield as
evidenced by the statistically significant difference of this treatment over the control or
no fertigation. Even with the basal application of chicken manure at the rate of 10 tons/ha
plus fertigation of wild sunflower extracts at a minimal rate of 0.5 tbsp/L water had a
significant increase in tuber yield.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect between fermented and fresh
wild sunflower extracts and rates of application on the total weight of classified tubers.
The highest yielding treatment combinations was obtained from plants fertigated with
fermented wild sunflower extracts at a rate of 1.5tbsp/L water (Figure 12) and fertigated
with fresh wild sunflower extract at a rate of 2tbsp/L water (Figure 18).

Dry Matter Content of Potato Tubers


Effect of the kind of wild sunflower extracts. The dry matter yield of potato was
not significantly affected by the kind of wild sunflower extracts as liquid fertilizer. The
result implies that sunflower extracts applied is fermented or fresh, the dry matter yield of
potato is not affected although numerically fermented slightly gave a higher DMY than
those applied with fresh extract.

Effect of different rates of wild sunflower extracts. The dry matter yield of potato
range from 20.05% to 21.50%. Although a general trend is observed wherein dry matter
yield slightly increases as the rate increased up to 1.5tbsp/L water. However no
significant effect was noted on rates of application of fermented and fresh wild sunflower
extracts.

 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

40
 
Table 12. Dry matter yield of potato tubers as affected by wild sunflower extracts

TREATMENT DRY
MATTER
CONTENT









(%)

Kind of Wild Sunflower Extract
Fermented Wild Sunflower Extract




20.91
Fresh Wild Sunflower Extract




20.55
Rates of Wild Sunflower Extract
Control







20.50
0.5 tbsp/ liter water






20.05
1 tbsp/ liter water






20.89
1.5 tbsp/ liter water






21.50
2 tbsp/ liter water






20.72
Factor A x Factor B






ns
*Means are not significantly different at 5% level using DMRT.
ns = not significant


Interaction
effect. Results show no significant interaction effect between the kind
and rates of wild sunflower extracts on the dry matter content of potato tubers.

Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)

Table 13 shows the return on cash expense of potato production as affected by
fertigation rates of wild sunflower extracts. Computations show that those applied with
2tbsp/ liter water of fresh wild sunflower extracts resulted the highest return of
investment of 33.81% due to lower variable cost compared to fermented wild sunflower
extract. This was followed by F1T5, treatment combination, applied with 2tbsp/liter water
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

41
 
Table 13. Return on cash expense of potato tubers as affected by the application of wild
sunflower extracts


TREATMENT
YIELD VARIABLE GROSS NET
(kg/5m2)
COST
INCOME
INCOME ROCE
(PhP)
(PhP)
(PhP)



(%)


F1T1
1.42
108.66
85.20
-23.46
-21.59
F1T2
1.58
134.49
94.80
-39.69
-29.51
F1T3
2.05
134.49
123.00
-11.49

-8.54
F1T4
2.68
134.49
160.80

26.31

19.56
F1T5
2.62
134.49
157.20

22.71

16.88
F2T1
1.61
108.66
96.60
-12.06
-11.10
F2T2
1.38
116.99
82.80
-34.19
-29.22
F2T3
1.83
116.99
109.80
-7.19
-16.15
F2T4
2.31
116.99
138.60
21.61

18.47
F2T5
2.57
116.99
154.20
37.21

31.81
*Average selling price of potato tubers is PhP 60.00/ kg basing on the price at the organic market
for the month of March, 2011.


and F1T4 having 24.33%, both applied with fermented wild sunflower extracts.

Results show negative net income in most of the treatments due to low tuber yield
and early harvesting (before maturity). Plants were severely infected with late blight 60
DAP because of the occurrence of heavy rains and showers in the month of January, 2011
(Table 14) which enhanced late blight infection. At 68 DAP almost 100% of the potato
leaves were severely attacked that affected photosynthesis and yield. Cloudy days and
rains every afternoon triggered fast disease infection of potato plants. Thus, the
experiment was terminated earlier without completing variety maturity of 90 days.
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

42
 
Table 14. Rainfall data for the month of January (BSU-PAG- ASA, April 1, 2011)


DAYS






INTENSITY









(mm)
January
12






7.8

January 14






T

January 20






5.6

January 21






T

January 23






15.8

January 24






16.6

*T= trace/ drizzle














 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

43
 
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary
Chemical fertilizers are used by most farmers in Benguet as a means of
supplementing the food supplies in the soil that leads to depletion in soil nutrients and
resulted in unfavorable soil conditions. Thus, one way of saving the land from
unproductively and less fertile is by conversion to organic farming. This study was
conducted at Organic Demo Farm from December 2010 to February 2011 to compare the
efficacy of wild sunflower extracts on the growth and yield of potato; to determine the
best rate of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts for fertigating potato; to
determine the more efficient kind and best rate of wild sunflower extract and, to assess
the most economical kind and rate of wild sunflower extract.
Wild sunflower extracts have no significant effect on the bulk density, water
holding capacity, pH, organic matter content and nitrogen content of the soil. However,
the rates of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts have high significant effect on
the total number of classified potato tubers, total weight of classified potato tubers, and
total yield of potato tubers. Results revealed that the highest total number of potato tubers
was observed from those applied with 1.5tbsp/L water. The highest total weight and total
yield of potato tubers was obtained from those applied with 2tbsp/L water. Plant vigor
and dry matter yield of potato was not affected significantly by wild sunflower extracts.

Conclusion
Based on the result, it is concluded that application of formulated wild sunflower
extract either as fermented or fresh enhance better growth and yield of potato.
 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

44
 

Formulated fermented and fresh wild sunflower extract has essential nutrient
elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other micronutrients which are
important on growth and yield of plants.

Recommendation

Either fresh or fermented wild sunflower extract can be used to enhance growth
and yield of potato. It is recommended that 1.5 and 2 tbsp/L water of either fermented or
fresh wild sunflower extracts are the best rate to use for fertigating potato. However
taking into consideration, the added cost in fermenting wild sunflower extract and while
the yield is almost the same as the fresh or unfermented wild sunflower extract, the later
is more economical to use. It is also suggested that a follow- up study is necessary to
determine the effects of adding the rates of fermented and fresh wild sunflower extracts
for fertigation of potato.











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

45
 
LITERATURE CITED

BAGYAN, F.B. 1980. Response of carrots to different time and combined methods of
nitrogen fertilization. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
P. 5.

BAWANG, F.T. 2009. Farming Systems Technologies for Agriculture Development.
Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines. P. 45.

BOLTICAN, L.M. 2008. Fermented papaya fruit juice as organic liquid fertilizer for bush
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) BS. Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 5.

BRADY, N.C. and R.R. WEIL. 2008. 14th edition. The Nature and Properties of Soils.
Pearson Education , Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. P 150

DONAHUE, R.L. 1970. Soils and Their Management. 3rd Edition. USA. The Interstate
Printers and Publishers, Inc. P. 100.

DURANTE, B.C. 1982. Effects of different rates of wild sunflower on the growth and
yield of inoculated garden pea. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 1, 4.

PILE, G. Undated. Fertigation. Retrieved 2 September 2010 from
http://www.fertigation.co.nz/

FERTIGATION SYSTEM, Undated. Retrieved 25 October 2010 from:
http://www.fertigationsystems.com/

FOLLET, R.H., L.S. MURPHY and R.L DONAHUE. 1981. Fertilizers and Soil
Ammendments. Englewood,Cliffs, N.J. USA. Prentice Hall, Incorporated. P. 325.

GAMBOA, F.L. 1977. Effects of two methods of planting of different liquid fertilization
on the growth and yield of peachy. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad Benguet. P. 3.

GUANZO, J.B. 1982. Response of white potato to the different rates and kinds of foliar
fertilizer. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 4, 5.

HIGNETT, T.P. 1985. Fertilizer manual. Muscle Shoals Alabama.International Fertilizer
Development Center. P. 14
 
JOINER, J. N. 1981. Foliage Plant Production. Prentice-Hall, Inc., England Cliffs. Pp.
242-243.

 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

46
 
JONES, U.S. 1982. Fertilizers and Soil Fertility. Virginia, USA. Reston Publishing
Company, Incorporated. P. 305.


LOCKHART, J.A.R. and A.J.L. WISEMAN. 1975. Introduction to Crop Husbandry.
Pergamon International Library of Science Technology, Engineering and Social
Studies. P. 104.

MALUCAY, E.T. 2008. Utilization of formulated fermented wild sunflower extract as
organic liquid fertilizer for cabbage. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 4.

MARTIN, J.H. and W.H. LEONARD. 1970. Principles of crop Production. 2nd edition.
Philippine Copyright by the MacMillan Company, New York. Pp. 849 and 851.

MENES, A. 2010. Response of pole snap beans to animal manure application under
organic production at La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad Benguet. P. 3.

PANDOSEN, M. D. 1986. Potential of Wild Sunflower (Tithonia diversfollia) as an
Organic Fertilizer. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P.
41

PILE, R. E. Jr. 1992. Environmentally Friendly Gardening: Easy Composting. Mosanto
Company. The Solaris Group, 2527 Camino Ramon, San Ramon. P. 33.


PELIGRINA, W.R., MARGES, H.E. and CALINGA, E.T. 1992. Sustainable agriculture

as practiced by farmers in the Philippines. Sibat Quezon city, Philippines. Pp. 83-
84.

PLASTER, E.J. 1997. Soil Science and Management. 3rd Edition. Delmar Publishers,
USA. P. 239.

SPEDDING, C.R.W. 1981. Vegetable Productivity. The Scientific and Medical Division
MacMillan Publishers, Institute of Biology, London. Pp. 118-119.

TANACIO, A. 2004. Readings on Sustainable Agriculture Practices With Mokosaku
Liquid Spray. Km5 La Trinidad, Benguet. Iyaman Incorporation. P. 17.

TINDALL, H.D. 1983. Vegetable in the tropics. 1st Edition. Hongkong, McMillan
Education Ltd. P 43.

TINOYAN, E. 2010. Practical Guide on Natural Farming System: Crop Production.
(Personal Interview)

USDA. 2000. Organic Production. Accessed at http.//www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic.

 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

47
 
ZULUETA, G.T. 1982. Response of celery to the different kinds and concentrations of
liquid fertilizers. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. P. 5.


























 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

48
 
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Chemical Analysis of Wild Sunflower Extract




















 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

49
 

Appendix Table 2. Bulk density of the soil after harvest (g/ cm3)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 1.08 1.06 1.01 3.15 1.05
F1T2 1.09 1.04 1.09 3.22 1.07
F1T3 1.14 1.16 1.06 3.36 1.12
F1T4 1.01 1.11 1.07 3.19 1.06
F1T5 1.16 1.06 1.02 3.24 1.08

Subtotal
5.48 5.43 5.25 16.16 5.39
F2T1 1.12 1.21 1.07 3.4 1.13
F2T2 1.15 1.05 1.01 3.21 1.07
F2T3 1.04 1.14 1.07 3.25 1.08
F2T4 0.94 1.11 1.06 3.11 1.04
F2T5 1.05 1.13 0.92 3.1 1.03
Subtotal
5.3 5.64 5.13 16.07 5.36
TOTAL 10.78 11.07 10.38 32.23 21.49














 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

50
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1 1.05 1.07 1.12 1.06 1.08 5.38 1.08
F2 1.13 1.07 1.08 1.04 1.03 5.35 1.07
TOTAL
2.18 2.14 2.20 2.10 2.11 10.73


MEAN
1.09 1.07 1.10 1.05 1.06

1.07


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.0240
0.0120

3.55

6.01
F 1
0.0003
0.0003
0.08 ns 4.41
8.28
T 4
0.0118
0.0030
0.83 ns 2.93
4.58
F x T
4
0.0165
0.0041
1.14 ns 2.93
4.58

ERROR
18
0.0648
0.0036



TOTAL
29
0.1173




ns
=
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
5.61














 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

51
 

Appendix Table 3. Water holding capacity of the soil after harvest (%)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 69.41
66.84
67.54
203.79
67.93
F1T2 64.47
65.63
65.87
195.97
65.32
F1T3 68.91
67.80
69.04
205.75
68.58
F1T4 68.48
59.98
69.41
197.87
65.96
F1T5 71.52
65.71
69.04
206.27
68.76
Subtotal
342.79
325.96
340.90
1009.65
336.55
F2T1 66.22
65.28
64.82
196.32
65.44
F2T2 67.38
71.01
65.96
204.35
68.12
F2T3 38.26
66.15
69.41
173.82
57.94
F2T4
72.11 64.84 76.25 213.2 71.07
F2T5 66.93
62.41
70.12
199.46
66.49
Subtotal
310.90 329.69 346.56 987.15 329.05
TOTAL 653.69
655.65
687.46
1996.80
665.60












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

52
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
67.93 65.32 68.58 65.96 68.76 336.55 67.31
F2
65.44 68.12 57.94 71.07 66.49 329.05 65.81
TOTAL
133.37 133.44 126.52 137.03 135.25 665.60
MEAN
66.69 66.72 63.26 68.52 67.63
66.56


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 71.87 35.94

3.55
6.01
F 1
16.87 16.87 0.08ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
95.14 23.79 0.11ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
113.83 28.46 0.13ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 3948.29 219.35




TOTAL 29 4246.00
  
  


ns = not significant






CV (%) = 22.25




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

53
 

Appendix Table 4. Soil pH after harvest




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 5.98
5.93
5.89
17.80
5.93
F1T2 5.88
5.97
5.80
17.65
5.88
F1T3 5.95
5.82
5.97
17.74
5.91
F1T4 5.83
5.97
5.89
17.69
5.909
F1T5 5.97
5.87
6.02
17.86
5.95
29.61 29.56 29.57 88.74 29.58
Subtotal
5.69 5.87 5.97 17.53 5.84
F2T1
6.00 5.89 5.83 17.72 5.91
F2T2
5.96 5.87 5.94 17.77 5.92
F2T3
5.96 5.92 5.90 17.78 5.93
F2T4
5.93 5.92 6.00 17.85 5.95
F2T5
Subtotal
29.54 29.47 29.64 88.65 29.55
TOTAL 59.15
59.03
59.21
177.39
59.13












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

54
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
5.93 5.88 5.91 5.90 5.95 29.57 5.91
F2
5.84 5.91 5.92 5.93 5.95 29.55 5.91
TOTAL
11.77 11.79 11.93 11.83 11.83
MEAN
5.89 5.90 5.92 5.92 5.92
5.91



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.0017 0.0009
3.55
6.01
F 1
0.0003 0.0003 0.04 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.0147 0.0037 0.57 ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.0142 0.0036 0.55 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.1169 0.0065




TOTAL 29 0.1478




ns = not significant






CV (%) = 1.36



 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

55
 

Appendix Table 5. Organic matter content of the soil after harvest (%)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 4.87
4.47
3.04
12.38
4.13
F1T2 3.29
4.32
3.21
10.82
3.61
F1T3 4.92
4.5
3.55
12.97
4.32
F1T4
2.86 3.66 3.18 9.70 3.23
F1T5 3.24
4.12
3.41
10.77
3.59

Subtotal
19.18 21.07 16.39 56.64 18.88
F2T1 4.92
3.49
3.21
11.62
3.87
F2T2
2.86 3.87 3.15 9.88 3.29
F2T3 3.46
3.26
3.84
10.56
3.52
F2T4 3.72
3.98
3.15
10.85
3.62
F2T5 3.95
3.09
3.21
10.25
3.42
Subtotal
18.91 17.69 16.56 53.16 17.72
TOTAL
38.09 38.76 32.95 109.8 36.6












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

56
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
4.13 3.61 4.32 3.23 3.59 18.88 3.78
F2
3.87 3.29 3.52 3.62 3.42 17.72 3.54
TOTAL
8.00 6.90 7.84 6.85 7.01
MEAN
2 3.45 3.92 3.43 3.51
3.66

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 2.021 1.010

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.404 0.404 1.31 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
1.848 0.462 1.5 ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
1.073 0.268 0.87 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 5.534 0.307



TOTAL 29 10.879


ns = not significant






CV (%) = 15.15





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

57
 

Appendix Table 6. Total nitrogen content of the soil after harvest (%)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
0.24 0.22 0.15 0.61 0.20
F1T2
0.16 0.22 0.16 0.54 0.18
F1T3
0.25 0.23 0.18 0.66 0.22
F1T4
0.14 0.18 0.16 0.48 0.16
F1T5
0.16 0.21 0.17 0.54 0.18

Subtotal
0.95 1.06 0.82 2.83 0.94
F2T1
0.25 0.17 0.16 0.58 0.19
F2T2
0.14 0.19 0.16 0.49 0.16
F2T3
0.17 0.16 0.19 0.52 0.17
F2T4
0.19 0.20 0.16 0.55 0.18
F2T5
0.20 0.15 0.16 0.51 0.17
Subtotal
0.95 0.87 0.83 2.65 0.88
TOTAL
1.9 1.93 1.65 5.48 1.83












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

58
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
0.20 0.18 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.94 0.19
F2
0.19 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.87 0.17
TOTAL
0.39 0.34 0.39 0.34 0.35
MEAN
0.20 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.18
0.18

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.0047 0.0024

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.0011 0.0011 1.22 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.0045 0.0011 1.22 ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.0037 0.0009 1.00 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.0158 0.0009




TOTAL 29 0.0298




ns = not significant






CV (%) = 16.67





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

59
 

Appendix Table 7. Dry matter content of potato tubers (%)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
18.67 20.33 21.00 60.00 20.00
F1T2
21.67 21.33 18.33 61.33 20.44
F1T3
20.33 21.33 20.67 62.33 20.78
F1T4
20.33 22.33 21.33 63.99 21.33
F1T5
25.33 20.00 20.67 66.00 22.00

Subtotal
106.33 105.32 102.00 313.65 104.55
F2T1
22.67 20.67 19.67 63.01 21.00
F2T2
20.33 18.33 20.33 58.99 19.66
F2T3
20.33 22.33 20.33 62.99 20.10
F2T4
22.33 23.33 19.33 64.99 21.66
F2T5
18.67
19.67 20 58.34
19.45
Subtotal
104.33 104.33 99.66 308.32 102.77
TOTAL
210.66 209.65 201.66 621.97 207.32












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

60
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
20.00 20.44 20.78 21.33 22.00 104.00 20.91
F2
21.00 19.66 21.00 21.66 19.45 102.77 20.55
TOTAL
41.00 40.10 41.78 42.99 41.45
MEAN
20.50 20.05 20.89 21.50 20.73
20.73

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 4.86 2.43

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.95 0.95 0.39 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
6.73 1.68 0.69 ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
11.49 2.87 1.18 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 43.78 2.43


TOTAL 29 67.81


ns
=
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
7.52





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

61
 

Appendix Table 8. Plant vigor 30 DAP (%)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
2 1 1 4
1.33
F1T2
1 2 1 4
1.33
F1T3
1 2 1 4
1.33
F1T4
1 1 1 3
1.00
F1T5
1 1 1 3
1.00
Subtotal
6
7
5
18
6.00
F2T1
2 2 1 5
1.67
F2T2
1 1 1 3
1.00
F2T3
1 2 1 4
1.33
F2T4
1 1 1 3
1.00
F2T5
2 1 1 4
1.33
Subtotal 7
7
5
19
6.33
TOTAL
13 14 10 37
12.33












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

62
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
1.33 1.33 1.30 1.00 1.00 5.96 1.19
F2
1.67 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.33 6.30 1.26
TOTAL
3 2.33 2.60 2.00 2.33
MEAN
1.5 1.17 1.3 1.00 1.17
1.23

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01


BLOCK 2 0.87 0.44
3.55 6.01
F 1
0.04
0.04
0.17 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.87
0.22
1.25 ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.46
0.12
0.66 ns
2.93 4.58
ERROR 18 3.13 0.17
TOTAL 29 5.37
ns
–
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
0.34




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

63
 

Appendix Table 9. Late blight infection rating at 30 DAP




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
1.8 2.0 1.9 5.7 1.9
F1T2
1.7 1.7 1.9 5.3 1.8
F1T3
1.9 1.7 1.9 5.5 1.8
F1T4
2.0 1.7 1.8 5.5 1.8
F1T5
2.0 1.7 1.9 5.6 1.87
Subtotal
9.4
8.8
9.4
27.6
9.2
F2T1
1.8 2.0 1.9 5.7 1.9
F2T2
1.9 2.0 1.7 5.6 1.7
F2T3
1.4 2.0 1.8 5.2 1.7
F2T4
1.7 2.0 1.9 5.6 1.9
F2T5
2.0 2.0 1.8 5.8 1.9
Subtotal 8.8
10
9.1
27.9
9.3
TOTAL
18.2 18.8 18.5 55.5 18.5












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

64
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
1.91 1.77 1.83 1.83 1.87 9.20 1.84
F2
1.90 1.87 1.73 1.87 1.93 9.30 1.86
TOTAL
3.80 3.64 3.56 3.70 3.80
MEAN
1.90 1.82 1.78 1.85 1.90
1.85

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.0130 0.0070
3.55
6.01
F 1
0.0030 0.0030 0.113 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.0600 0.0150 0.563 ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.0400 0.0100 0.375 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.4800 0.0270


TOTAL 29 0.596


ns
=
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
8.88





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

65
 

Appendix Table 10. Late blight infection rating 45 DAP




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 3.00 3.00 3.00 9.00 3.00
F1T2 2.90 3.00 3.00 8.90 2.97
F1T3 2.90 2.80 2.70 8.40 2.80
F1T4 2.30 2.90 2.40 7.60 2.53
F1T5 2.80 2.40 2.70 7.90 2.63
Subtotal 13.90 14.10 13.80 41.80 13.93
F2T1 2.90 2.90 3.00 8.80 2.93
F2T2 3.10 2.70 2.90 8.70 2.90
F2T3 2.90 2.80 2.80 8.50 2.83
F2T4 2.70 3.00 2.90 8.60 2.87
F2T5 2.90 2.70 2.80 8.40 2.80
Subtotal 14.50 14.10 14.40 43.00 14.33
TOTAL 28.40 28.20 28.20 84.80 28.27












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

66
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
3.00 2.97 2.80 2.53 2.63 13.93 2.79
F2
2.93 2.90 2.83 2.87 2.80 14.33 2.87
TOTAL
5.94 5.87 5.63 5.4 5.43
MEAN
2.97 2.94 2.81 2.7 2.72
2.83


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.004 0.002
3.55
6.01
F 1
0.050 0.050 1.667 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.360 0.090 3.000*
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.170 0.040 1.333 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.480 0.030


TOTAL 29 1.064


ns
=
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
6.12
*= significant





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

67
 

Appendix Table 11. Late blight infection rating 60 DAP




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
4.30 5.00 4.9 14.2 4.73
F1T2 4.30
4.80
4.9
14
4.67
F1T3
4.60 5.00 5.00 14.6 4.87
F1T4
4.80 4.60 5.00 14.4 4.80
F1T5
4.80 5.00 5.00 14.8 4.93

Subtotal
22.80 24.40 24.80 72.00 24.00
F2T1





F2T2 4.80
4.80
5.00
14.60
4.87
F2T3 4.90
5.00
4.90
14.80
4.93
F2T4 4.60
4.80
5.00
14.40
4.80
F2T5 4.70
4.80
5.00
14.50
4.83
Subtotal 4.90
4.90
5.00
14.80
4.93
TOTAL
23.90 24.30 24.90 73.10 24.37
46.70
48.70
49.70
145.10
48.37






 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

68
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
4.73 4.67 4.87 4.80 4.93 24.00 4.80
F2
4.87 4.93 4.80 4.83 4.93 24.36 4.87
TOTAL
9.60 9.60 9.67 9.63 9.86
MEAN
4.80 4.80 4.84 4.82 4.93
4.84


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.004 0.002
3.55
6.01
F 1
0.050 0.050 1.87 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.360 0.090 3.38*
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.170 0.043 1.59 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.480 0.027


TOTAL 29 1.064



ns
=
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
3.58
* = significant





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

69
 

Appendix Table 12. Number of small potato tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 25
38
49
112
22.4
F1T2 51
28
43
122
24.4
F1T3 52
41
71
164
32.8
F1T4 52
61
77
190
38.0
F1T5 51
58
74
183
36.6

Subtotal
231 226 314 771 154.2
F2T1
34 19 40 93 18.6
F2T2 33
26
43
102
20.4
F2T3 40
48
45
133
26.6
F2T4 74
54
70
198
39.6
F2T5 82
52
73
207
41.4
Subtotal
263 199 271 733 146.6
TOTAL 494
425
585
1504
300.8












 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

70
 

F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
37.33 40.67 54.67 63.33 61.00 257.00 51.40
F2
31.00 34.00 44.33 66.00 69.00 244.33 48.87
TOTAL
68.33 74.67 99.00 129.33 130.00
MEAN
34.17 37.34 49.50 64.67 65.00
50.14


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2
1288.067 644.040
3.55
6.01
F 1
48.133 48.140 0.6 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
5108.467 1277.120 15.93** 2.93 4.58
F x T
4
345.530 86.380 1.08 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18
1443.260 80.180


TOTAL 29 8233.47


ns = not significant






CV (%) = 17.86
** = highly significant





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

71
 


Appendix Table 13. Number of medium potato tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 22 29 35 86
28.67
F1T2 17 22 38 77
25.67
F1T3 34 34 39
107
35.67
F1T4 54 54 42
150
50.00
F1T5 43 42 40
125
41.67
Subtotal 170 181 194 545
181.67
F2T1 22 22 26 70
23.33
F2T2 29 19 35 83
27.67
F2T3 37 47 33
117
39.00
F2T4 36 46 42
124
41.33
F2T5 42 43 49
134
44.67
Subtotal 166 177 185 528 176
TOTAL 336 358 379 1073
357.67











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

72
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
28.67 25.57 35.67 50.00 41.67 181.68 36.37
F2
23.33 27.67 39.00 41.33 44.67 176.00 35.20
TOTAL
52.00 53.34 74.67 91.33 86.37
MEAN
26.00 26.67 37.34 45.67 43.17
35.77


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 92.47 46.24

3.55
6.01
F 1
9.64 9.64 0.26 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
2000.54 500.14 13.34**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
181.86 45.47 1.21 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 674.86 37.49




TOTAL 29 2959.37




ns = not significant






CV (%) = 17.12
** = highly significant




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

73
 


Appendix Table 14. Number of big potato tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 6
7
11
24
8.00
F1T2 12
6
13
31
10.33
F1T3
19 15 12 46
15.33
F1T4
29 24 28 81
27.00
F1T5
28 19 21 68
22.67
Subtotal
94
71
85
250
83.33
F2T1 4
8
11
23
7.67
F2T2 12
8
17
37
12.33
F2T3
17 16 16 49
16.33
F2T4
25 31 32 88
29.33
F2T5
23 26 31 80
26.67
Subtotal 81
89
107
277
92.33
TOTAL
175 160 192 527
175.67











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

74
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
8.00 10.33 15.33 27.00 26.67 83.33 16.17
F2
7.67 12.33 16.33 29.33 26.67 92.33 18.47
TOTAL
15.67 22.66 31.66 56.33 49.34
MEAN
7.84 11.33 15.83 28.17 24.67
17.57


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 51.27 25.64

3.55
6.01
F 1
24.30 24.30 2.16 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
1796.20 449.05 39.99**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
15.54 3.89 0.97 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 202.06 11.23




TOTAL 29





ns – not significant






CV (%) = 19.07
** = highly significant




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

75
 






Appendix Table 15. Weight of small potato tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
0.20 0.35 0.30 0.85 0.28
F1T2
0.40 0.25 0.35 1.00 0.33
F1T3
0.45 0.45 0.60 1.50 0.50
F1T4
0.45 0.45 0.70 1.60 0.53
F1T5
0.35 0.45 0.70 1.50 0.50

Subtotal
1.85 1.95 2.65 6.45 2.15
F2T1
0.25 0.20 0.38 0.83 0.28
F2T2
0.30 0.15 0.40 0.85 0.28
F2T3
0.20 0.30 0.45 0.95 0.32
F2T4 0.80
0.40
0.50
1.7
0.57
F2T5
0.75 0.55 0.75 2.05 0.68
Subtotal 2.3
1.6
2.48
6.38
2.13
TOTAL 4.15
3.55
5.13
12.83
4.28











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

76
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
0.28 0.33 0.50 0.53 0.50 2.14 0.43
F2
0.28 0.28 0.32 0.57 0.68 2.13 0.43
TOTAL
0.56 0.61 0.82 1.10 1.18
MEAN
0.28 0.31 0.41 0.55 0.59
0.43


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.12 0.06

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.00 0.00 0.00 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.47 0.12 9.61**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.10 0.03 2.05 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.22 0.01


TOTAL 29 0.91




ns = not significant






CV (%) = 23.25
** = highly significant




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

77
 


Appendix Table 16. Weight of medium potato tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
0.35 0.60 0.35 1.30 0.43
F1T2
0.20 0.75 0.65 1.60 0.53
F1T3
0.65 0.85 0.75 2.25 0.75
F1T4
1.30 0.85 1.25 3.40 1.13
F1T5
1.20 1.20 1.20 3.60 1.20
Subtotal
3.70
4.25
4.20
12.15
4.05
F2T1
0.35 0.60 0.70 1.65 0.55
F2T2
0.70 0.50 0.65 1.85 0.62
F2T3
0.75 0.75 0.85 2.35 0.78
F2T4
0.85 0.80 1.15 2.80 0.93
F2T5
1.25 0.75 0.90 2.90 0.97
Subtotal 3.90
3.40
4.25
11.55
3.85
TOTAL 7.60
7.65
8.45
23.70
7.90











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

78
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
0.43 0.53 0.75 1.13 1.20 4.04 0.81
F2
0.55 0.62 0.78 0.93 0.97 3.85 0.77
TOTAL
0.98 1.15 1.53 2.06 2.17
MEAN
0.49 0.58 0.77 1.03 0.97
0.77


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.05 0.02

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.02 0.02 0.59 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
1.69 0.42
12.39**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.15 0.04 1.18 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.61 0.03


TOTAL 29 2.52




ns = not significant






CV (%) = 22.49
** = highly significant




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

79
 


Appendix Table 17. Weight of big potato tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
0.25 0.25 0.35 0.85 0.28
F1T2
0.40 0.30 0.40 1.10 0.37
F1T3
0.35 0.20 0.35 0.90 0.30
F1T4
0.65 0.45 0.60 1.70 0.57
F1T5
0.50 0.35 0.40 1.25 0.42
Subtotal
2.15
1.55
2.1
5.8
1.93
F2T1
0.15 0.25 0.35 0.75 0.25
F2T2
0.20 0.15 0.45 0.80 0.27
F2T3
0.30 0.45 0.45 1.20 0.40
F2T4
0.45 0.55 0.55 1.55 0.52
F2T5
0.40 0.45 0.60 1.45 0.48
Subtotal
1.50 1.85 2.40 5.75 1.92
TOTAL 3.65
3.40
4.50
11.55
3.85











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

80
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
0.28 0.37 0.30 0.57 0.42 1.94 0.39
F2
0.25 0.27 0.40 0.52 0.48 1.92 0.38
TOTAL
0.53 0.64 0.70 1.09 0.90
MEAN
0.27 0.32 0.35 0.55 0.45
0.39


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.067 0.033

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.000 0.000 0.01 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.292 0.073 11.93**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.042 0.011 1.72 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.11 0.006


TOTAL
29


ns = not significant






CV (%) = 20.32
** = highly significant




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

81
 


Appendix Table 18. Total weight of marketable tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
0.85 1.30 0.85 3.00 1.00
F1T2
1.00 1.60 1.10 3.70 1.23
F1T3
1.50 2.25 0.90 4.65 1.55
F1T4
1.60 3.40 1.70 6.70 2.23
F1T5
1.50 3.60 1.25 6.35 2.12

Subtotal
6.45 12.15 5.80 24.40 8.13
F2T1
0.83 1.65 0.75 3.23 1.08
F2T2
0.85 1.85 0.80 3.50 1.17
F2T3
0.95 2.35 1.20 4.50 1.50
F2T4
1.70 2.80 1.55 6.05 2.02
F2T5
2.05 2.90 1.45 6.40 2.13
Subtotal
6.38 11.55 5.75 23.68 7.89
TOTAL
12.83 23.10 11.50 48.08 16.03











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

82
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
1.0 1.23 1.55 2.23 2.12 8.13 1.63
F2
1.08 1.17 1.50 2.02 2.13 7.9 1.58
TOTAL
2.08 2.40 3.05 4.35 4.25
MEAN
1.04 1.20 1.53 0.87 2.13
1.60


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 8.914 4.457 39.57
3.55
6.01
F 1
0.017 0.017 0.15 ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
6.194 1.548 13.75**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.073 0.018 0.16 ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 2.027 0.113


TOTAL
29


ns = not significant






CV (%) = 20.94
** = highly significant




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

83
 


Appendix Table 19. Total weight of non-marketable tubers (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1
0.45 0.50 0.30 1.25 0.42
F1T2
0.20 0.60 0.25 1.05 0.35
F1T3
0.30 0.65 0.55 1.50 0.50
F1T4
0.45 0.45 0.45 1.35 0.45
F1T5
0.45 0.80 0.25 1.50 0.50

Subtotal
1.85 3.00 1.80 6.65 2.22
F2T1 0.50
0.55
0.55
1.6
0.53
F2T2
0.20 0.25 0.20 0.65 0.22
F2T3
0.30 0.35 0.35 1.00 0.33
F2T4
0.43 0.20 0.25 0.88 0.29
F2T5
0.50 0.40 0.40 1.30 0.43
Subtotal
1.93 1.75 1.75 5.43 1.81
TOTAL 3.78
4.75
3.55
12.08
4.03

  
  
  
  
  





 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

84
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
0.42 0.35 0.50 0.45 0.50 2.22 0.44
F2
0.53 0.22 0.33 0.29 0.43 1.8 0.36
TOTAL
0.95 0.57 0.83 0.74 0.93
MEAN
0.48 0.29 0.42 0.37 0.47
0.41

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 0.081 0.041 2.46
3.55
6.01
F 1
0.050 0.050 3.01ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
0.148 0.037 2.25ns
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.083 0.021 1.25ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 0.296 0.016


TOTAL 29 0.658


ns
=
not
significant
CV
(%)
=
31.87




 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

85
 


Appendix Table 20. Total tuber yield per plot (kg/5m2)




TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
F1T1 1.30
1.80
1.15
4.25
1.42
F1T2 1.20
2.20
1.35
4.75
1.58
F1T3 1.80
2.90
1.45
6.15
2.05
F1T4 2.05
3.85
2.15
8.05
2.68
F1T5 1.95
4.40
1.50
7.85
2.62
Subtotal
8.3
15.15
7.60
31.05
10.35
F2T1 1.33
2.20
1.30
4.83
1.61
F2T2 1.05
2.10
1.00
4.15
1.38
F2T3 1.25
2.70
1.55
5.50
1.83
F2T4 2.13
3.00
1.80
6.93
2.31
F2T5 2.55
3.30
1.85
7.70
2.57
Subtotal 8.31
13.30 7.50
29.11
9.70
TOTAL 16.61
27.85 15.1
60.16
20.05











 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

86
 


F x T TWO - WAY TABLE


TREATMENT T1
T2
T3
T4
T5 TOTAL
MEAN
F1
1.42 1.58 2.05 2.68 2.62 10.35 2.07
F2
1.61 1.38 1.83 2.31 2.57 9.70 1.94
TOTAL
3.03 2.96 3.88 4.99 5.19 20.05
MEAN
1.51 1.48 1.94 2.50 2.60
2.01


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
SOURCE OF
OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES
SQUARES
F
F





0.05
0.01
BLOCK 2 9.16 4.58

3.55
6.01
F 1
0.13 0.13 0.58ns
4.41 8.28
T 4
6.62 1.66 7.43**
2.93 4.58
F x T
4
0.27 0.07 0.30ns
2.93 4.58

ERROR 18 4.01 0.22


TOTAL 29 20.19




ns = not significant






CV (%) = 23.34
**= highly significant


 
Comparison of Fermented and Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on
Potato (Solanum tuberusom)/ JAEDARHLYN T. PAQUITO. 2011

---

Document Outline

• Comparison of Fermentedand Fresh Wild Sunflower Extracts for Fertigation on Potato (Solanum tuberusom)
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---