BIBLIOGRAPHY MONTES, FROILAN R. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MONTES, FROILAN R. APRIL 2006. Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in
an Organic Farm at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet.
Adviser: Belinda A. Tad-awan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to: determine the growth and yield of potato genotypes
at Master’s Garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet; determine the best potato genotypes in
terms of yield, disease and insect pest resistance; determine the economic benefit of
organic potato production using different genotypes; and determine which of the
genotypes will be selected by the farmer.
Genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2, Kennebec and Ganza were observed to have
produced plants which are highly vigorous at 35 days after planting (DAP). Genotype
676089 produced the tallest plants, the highest weight of tubers and highest dry matter
content of tubers. Genotypes IP84007.67, 676070, and 13.1.1 were observed to be
resistant to late blight at 60 and 75 DAP. For the cost and returns for seed tuber
production, genotype 380251.17 obtained the highest return on cash expense.
Based on the results, genotype 676089 is the best grown in plastic pots under
organic production at Master’s Garden due to highly vigorous and tall plants, high yield,
high dry matter content of tubers and resistance to late blight. Genotypes IP84007.67,
676070, and 13.1.1 could be grown under the conditions of the study as shown by their
resistance to late blight.
IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza were selected by the organic practitioner based on
yield and resistance to late blight.
Profits can be obtained in most of the genotypes if sold as seed tubers. High profit
could be obtained if G1 tubers will be sold as organic seeds or planting materials.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Climatic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Chemical Properties of the
Planting Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Growth Parameters
18
Plant Vigor at 35 DAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Height at 30 and 85 DAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Haulm Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Late Blight Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Leaf Miner Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Yield and Yield Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Marketable, Non-Marketable
and Total Yield Per Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Dry Matter Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Cost and Return Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
iii
Farmer’s Selection and Reasons for Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
iv
INTRODUCTION
The
potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of mankind’s most valuable food. It
produces more energy and protein per cultivated area and per unit of time than most other
major crops (CIP 1988). Potato has a high nutritive value being particularly rich in
carbohydrates, protein, minerals and vitamins. It ranks first, both in popularity and
value among the vegetable crops grown in the northern provinces of the Philippines. A
total area of 2,000 to 3,000 hectares is planted annually to potato in Benguet and
Mountain Province, the country’s main potato production areas, but productivity has not
yet reached maximum potential (PCARRD, 1982).
Conventional practices of potato production employs the use of inorganic
fertilizers and chemical pesticides. However, this kind of practice will lead to
environmental degradation according to researches. The water is contaminated, the air is
being polluted and the soil is turning acidic. An alternative practice to these problems is
organic farming. According to Briones (1997), organic farming employs the use of
organic fertilizers, diverse cropping system, sanitation and without the use of any
chemical pesticides. An example of an organic farm is the Master’s garden at Puguis, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Another practice in organic farming is the use of resistant varieties against
diseases and insects. Resistant varieties would minimize the use of synthetic fungicides
and insecticides, thus, evaluation of varieties under organic production is important. In
this kind of practice, food production will become sustainable, because not only soil
fertility is improved but also increased crop production. Farmers not only use low inputs
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
2
in the production but also they can gain high profit. Products are also safe to eat since
there are no harmful chemical content.
The objectives of the study were to:
1. determine the growth and yield of potato genotypes at Master’s Garden,
Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet;
2. determine the best potato genotypes in terms of yield, disease and insect pest
resistance;
3. determine the economic benefit of organic potato production using different
genotypes; and
4. determine which of the genotypes will be selected by the organic farmer.
This study was conducted at Master’s garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet from
October 2005 to January 2006.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Organic Farming Defined
According to Briones (1997), Organic Agriculture (OA) is the traditional term
used by the farmers to include all the diverse farming system without the use of chemical
inputs. Further, organic agriculture promotes and enhances a holistic production
management, which includes agro-ecosystem, health including bio-diversity, biological
cycles and soil biological activity. Crop rotations, green manuring recycling of farm
manure as other ecological ways of building up soil fertility and productivity were the
appropriate practiced in organic farming.
Components of Organic Farming
Use of organic fertilizers. Composting can be an effective strategy to stabilize
paper mill residuals prior to land application (Valente et al, 1987; Campbell et al, 1995).
According to Evanylo and Daniels (1991) the composting process biologically stabilize
heterogeneous raw paper mill residuals reduces mass and volume and thus handling and
hauling cost.
According to Balaoing (1995), the nutrient content of organic fertilizer
particularly in rice straw has N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na and S. The soil reaction with the
exception of urea, becomes acidic if inorganic fertilizers are used for a longer period of
time. Organic fertilizers stimulate and increase a much greater extent of microbial
populations in the soil. Organic fertilizer aids the plants in absorbing more nutrients
already present in the soil, the soil turns black because of rich in humus. Moisture retains
longer, and preventing the crops from drying up when the soil is rich in organic matter. It
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
4
minimizes pollution because the compost was recycled from rotten wastes. And most of
all organic fertilizer is cheaper.
Organic farmers build healthy soils by nourishing the living component of the
soil, its microbial inhabitants that release, transform and transfer nutrients. The soil
organic matter, will contributes to good soil structure and water holding capacity,
Organic farmers feed soil biota and built soil organic matter with the practice of cover
crops, compost and biologically based soil amendments. This kind of practice will
produce healthy plants that able to resist disease and insect predation (Anonymous,
2005).
Crop protection in organic farming. Pest control is done without applying
chemical methods. The strategy of organic farmers in controlling pest and diseases is
prevention through good plant nutrition and management. With the use of cover crops
and sophisticated crop rotations that will change the field ecology, effectively disrupting
the habitat for weeds, insects and disease organisms. Organic farmers are relying on a
diverse population of soil organisms, beneficial insects and birds to keep the pests in
check. When pest populations get out of balance, growers will implement a variety of
strategies such as the use of predators, mating disruption, traps and barriers, growers are
required to use sanitation and cultural practices first before they can resort to applying an
organic pesticides to control the weed, pests and disease problems (Pawar, 2005).
Diversity in organic farming. As cited by Pawar (2005), diverse cropping as crop
production will follow the pattern in time and space. This practice will include multistory
cropping, mixed cropping, crop rotation, strip and relay intercropping etc. It enhances
ecological benefits simultaneously, which maintains efficiency of production. The
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
5
benefits of crop diversification includes: increased yield, reduced pest incidence
improved weed control, reduced soil erosion, the recycling of nutrient reserves from
depth of soil and transfer of nitrogen from nitrogen fixing species.
Importance of Variety Evaluation in Organic Farming
The proposed standard of variety selection in organic farming was expectedly
adopted locally that are common in the area, with resistance to pests and diseases, so that
the crop planted have high production. However, the new revisions limit the use of non-
organically produced seeds. Therefore, farmers are required to use-certified organic
seed; bulbs, tubers, cuttings, annual seedlings, that it should be transplanted when readily
available. All propagation materials used in organic farming must be of organic in origin.
Organic farmers need the varieties that are adapted well to specific soil and fertility
conditions. In several circumstances varieties that do not perform well in organic system
have different yield rankings. In selection the right variety the farmer must also consider
the consumer requirement, supermarket requirement, variety maturity in order to achieve
the best production needed (Singh, 1999).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Farm
The Master’s Garden is located at Sitio Pinalyok, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet.
It is 2 km from Naguilan Road. When passing at Tam-awan Village Longlong, La
Trindad, Benguet, the farm is 2 km away. The elevation of the farm is 1,342 m asl and
15o13” east latitude and longitude (Fig. 1).
The Master’s Garden is an organic farm, with an area of 1,500 m2 producing
mainly vegetables. The topography is terraced and every terrace is constructed with a
greenhouse. The planting area were beds constructed with bricks measuring 1 m width
with no constant length. These bricks are permanently cemented (Fig. 2).
The crops being planted are different varieties of lettuce and other greens like
zucchini garden peas, arugula and bush beans. Other vegetables include carrots, broccoli,
cucumber, tomatoes and cabbage and sugar beets. Some herbs are also planted in small
scale like marjoram, thyme, basil, rosemary, parsely, lemon balm, dill, sage, mint, chives,
oregano and tarragon.
The Farmer and His Practices
Mr. Ambrosio L. Acosta is 46 years old, completed a degree of Bachelor of Science
in Agriculture major in Horticulture at the University of the Philippines, Los Baños,
Laguna (UPLB).
Mr. Acosta is an organic practitioner for six years producing various crops. He
attended various trainings such as; Organic Farming seminar at Sta. Cruz, California,
USA; Willitt’s Bio Intensive Farming at California; Rodale Organic farming at New
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
7
York, USA and the first Organic Congress held at BSU this year. He is a full time farmer
and has three employees. The income he generated in 2004 and 2005 is P 360,000.00
from his main crop, lettuce.
Compost
making. Fresh shredded grasses are placed in one corner and sprayed
with Effective Microorganism (EM1). After two weeks, the compost is ready to be
applied as fertilizer for seedling production.
Nursery
management. Seedlings are planted in trays. After two weeks from seed
emergence, the seedlings are transferred to small plastic pots. Two weeks after, the
seedlings are transplanted in beds of the greenhouse.
Land
preparation. The soil is dug with the use of Japanese hoe with a deep plow
of about 12 inches.
Organic fertilizer application. Fertilizer application is basal. Hilling up is done
only in cabbage and broccoli, by making mounds between rows before planting. After
two weeks mounds are spread at the base of the plants.
Irrigation. Sprinkler method is used.
Pest and disease management. Insect pest and diseases are controlled by a
combination of the following: crop rotation; mix cropping; spraying of Bacillus
thurengiensis (Bt) and use of resistant varieties.
Harvesting. Harvesting is staggered, because of diversity of crops planted in the
farm.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
8
The Experiment Proper
Preparation of Planting Materials
First, potato mother plants were established from the different genotypes. When
the mother plants have produced apical shoots, these were ready for stem cutting
production. Apical shoots were cut when mother plants have three to four simple leaves.
The shoots were cut just above the node using a sterilized sharp scarpel or blade. The
blades were dipped in soap or lysol solution before cutting the next plant. Sanitation was
employed to prevent the spread of diseases and viruses.
The composition of the soil for rooting is one sack carbonized rice hull, 1/3 sack of
compost and two sacks of subsoil. The soil mixture was moistened, covered with plastic
and left for two weeks before used for rooting. The stem cuttings were rooted for 10 to
14 days in the nursery before transplanting in pots.
Lay-out of the Experiment and Treatments
The genotypes were laid out following randomized complete block design (RCBD)
with three replications as follows:
GENOTYPE
ORIGIN
T1 – IP84007.67
CIP, Peru
T2 – 380251.17
CIP, Peru
T3 – 676070
CIP, Peru
T4 – 5.19.2.1
Philippines
T5 – 573275
CIP, Peru
T6 – 676089
CIP, Peru
T7 – 5.19.2.2
Philippines
T8 – 13.1.1
CIP, Peru
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
9
T9 – Kennebec
USA
T10 – Ganza
CIP, Peru
Preparation of Medium for the Establishment of Plants
The planting medium was a mixture of one part compost and two parts of garden
soil. The compost were purely grasses of different species. The collected grasses were
shredded and composted within 14 days with the help of effective microorganisms. Four
kilograms soil mixture was placed in plastic pots to reach 3 to 4 inches depth before
planting. When the plants reached a height of 6 inches, fresh shredded grasses and soil
were added. Green manure was added twice until the pots are filled-up with soil.
Planting and Plant Establishment
Pots measuring 8 x 16 inches were planted with two rooted stem cuttings per pot,
thus a total of 10 plants per treatment in every replication there were 50 pots (Fig. 3 and
4).
Management Practices
All management practices employed from planting to postharvest were all
farmer’s practices. There were no chemical spraying done. Instead, crop protection
relied on diversity of the crops present in the farm.
Irrigation was done using the sprinkler method.
Data Gathered
A. Climatic data
The following meteorological data were taken from BSU- PAGASA:
1. Temperature
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
10
2. Relative Humidity
3. Rainfall
4. Sunshine duration
B. Growth parameters
1. Plant vigor. Plant vigor was taken at 35 days after planting (DAP) using
CIP rating scale (NPRCRTC, 2003).
SCALE DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1
Plants are weak with few stems and
Poor vigor
leaves; very pale
2
Plants are weak with few thin stems
Less vigorous
and leaves; pale
3
Better than less vigorous Moderately
vigorous
4
Plants are moderately strong with
Vigorous
robust stems and leaves; leaves are
light green in color
5
Plants are strong with robust stems
Highly vigorous
and leaves; leaves are light to dark
green in color
2. Height at 30 and 85 DAP. Heights of the plants were measured at 30 and 85
DAP from the base of the plant to the tip of the tallest shoot.
3.
Haulm
weight. This was weighed after separating the roots and tubers at
harvest.
C. Reaction to late blight infection and leaf miner infestation
1. Late blight infection. Rating was done at 45, 60 and 75 DAP using CIP
(Henfling, 1982) rating scale as follows:
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
11
BLIGHT SCALE DESCRIPTION
1
1
No blight to be seen
01-1
1
Very few plants in larger treatment with lesions.
Not more than 2 lesions per 10m of row (+/-30
plants).
1.1- 2
2
Up to 10 small lesions per plant.
3.1-10
3
Up to 30 small lesions per plant or up to 1 each
leaflets attacked.
10.1-24
4
Most plants are visibly attacked and 1 in 3 leaflets
infected. Multiple infections per leaflets.
25-49
5
Nearly every leaflet with lesions. Multiple
infections per leaflets are common. Field or plot
looks green, but all plants in pots are blighted.
50-74
6
Every plant blighted and half the leaf area
destroyed by blight fields look green-flecked, and
brown, blight is very obvious.
75-90
7
As previous, but 3/4 of each plant blighted. Lower
branches may be overwhelmingly killed off,
and the only green leaves, if any, are spindly
due to extensive foliage loss. Field looks neither
brown nor green.
91-97
8
Some leaves and most stems are green. Field looks
brown with some leaves patches.
97.1-99.9 9
Few green leaves almost all with blight lesions
remain. Many stem lesions field looks brown.
100
9
All leaves and stems dead.
Description: 1-Highly resistant; 2-3–Resistant; 4-5–Moderately
resistant; 6 -7–Moderately susceptible; 8-9–Susceptible.
D. Yield and yield components
1. Weight of marketable tubers per plant (g). All tubers with diameter of more
than 1.5 cm were weighed.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
12
2. Weight of non-marketable tubers per plant (g). All tubers that were
malformed, damaged by pest and diseases, injured with greening were weighed.
3. Total yield per plant (g). The total weight of marketable and non-marketable
tubers were taken.
E. Other parameters
1. Dry matter content (DMC). A 20 g fresh tuber sample was weighed and oven
dried for 24 hours at 80 °C. After 24 hours, dry weight was obtained using a sensitive
balance.
Dry matter content of tubers was obtained by the following formula.
% DMC = 100 – % MC
Fresh weight – Oven dry weight
Where: % MC =
X 100
Fresh weight
2. Cost and return analysis. The cost of production, gross sales, net profit and
return on cash expense were determined. Return on cash expense was computed by the
following formula:
Net Profit
Total cost of Production
ROCE % =
X 100
3. Farmer’s selection. At harvest, the farmer selected the genotype of his choice
and cited the reasons for choosing the genotypes.
Data Analysis
All quantitative data was analyzed using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
13
differences among the treatment means was tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
(DMRT).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
14
Fig. 1. Overview of the greenhouses
Fig. 2. Planting area composed of beds constructed with bricks
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
15
Fig. 3. Planting of rooted stem cuttings in pots
Fig. 4. Pots planted with rooted stem cuttings
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Climatic Data
Table 1 shows the climatic data during the conduct of the study. The temperature
ranged from 15.57 °C to 24.51°C. Mean relative humidity was 80.81 %. Rainfall is quite
low with an average of 2.01 mm. Sunshine duration ranged from 243.4 to 369.17 Kj
during the conduct of the study.
Temperature, relative humidity and sunshine duration during the conduct of the
study were favorable for potato production as reported by researchers (PCARRD, 1982).
The occurrence of rainfall may have contributed to high humidity which indirectly caused
occurrence of late blight at the later stages of growth.
Table 1. Climatic data of the area during the experiment
TEMPERATURE
RAINFALL
SUNSHINE
MONTH
(°C)
RELATIVE
AMOUNT
DURATION
HUMIDITY
MAX MIN
(mm)
(Kj)
October 24.25
18.25
82.5 0.9 287.1
November 24.51 17.91 79.75
1.6
303.65
December 23.42 16.81 78.62
0
243.4
January 23.15
15.57
82.37 5.57 369.17
MEAN 23.83
17.13
80.81 2.01
301.65
SOURCE: BSU- PAG – ASA (2006).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
17
Chemical Properties of the Planting Medium
Soil pH. Table 2 shows that pH after harvest increased. The increase might be
due to the application of green manure and compost as claimed by earlier researches on
organic fertilizers.
According to Motes and Criswell (2000), potatoes grow well in a wide variety of
soils and soil pH range from 5.0 to 6.5 with satisfactory production.
Soil Organic Matter. Table 2 shows that the organic matter of the medium
decreased from 17.5 % to 6.0 %. The decline could be due to the fact that total amount of
crop residues returned to the soil is low when there is continuous production of crops
such as potato (Motes and Criswell, 2000).
Nitrogen. Nitrogen of the medium also decreased. This could be due to the high
uptake of nutrient needed by the potato plant. Several researchers reported that potatoes
need high amount of nitrogen for growth and development (Motes and Criswell, 2000).
Phosphorous. There was an increase in the total phosphorous content in the
medium. The increase in the phosphorous content may be due to the green manure and
compost incorporated in the soil. This corroborates with the study of Haluschak et al.
(2004) that green manure and compost increase the phosphorus content of the soil.
Balaoing (1995) likewise claimed that rice straw contains N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na and S.
Since the compost used are plant-based materials, these may have the same composition.
Potassium. Potassium in the soil increased. The increase could be attributed to
more available potassium of the planting medium after green manure application.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
18
Table 2. The initial and final analysis of the planting medium
OM
N
P
K
pH
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Before planting
6.64
17.5
0.87
75 2,960
5
After harvest
6.76
6.0
0.3
360 3,000
Source: Bureau of Soils, Pacdal, Baguio City
Growth Parameters
Plant Vigor at 35 DAP
Genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2, Kennebec and Ganza were highly vigorous at 35
DAP (Table 3). Highly vigorous plants maybe due to the amendments incorporated in
the soil. The compost used nutrients that sustained the plants (Acosta, 2005). According
to Balaoing (1995), organic fertilizers aid the plants in absorbing more nutrients and the
soil is rich in humus.
Table 3. Plant vigor of ten potato genotypes at 35 DAP
GENOTYPE PLANT
VIGOR
IP84007.67 Vigorous
380251.17 Highly
vigorous
676070 Vigorous
5.19.2.1 Vigorous
573275 Vigorous
676089 Highly
vigorous
5.19.2.2 Highly
vigorous
13.1.1 Highly
vigorous
Kennebec Highly
vigorous
Ganza Highly
vigorous
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
19
Height at 30 and 85 DAP
Table 4 shows the height of the plants at 30 and 85 DAP. Genotype 676089
significantly produced the tallest plants, while genotype 5.19.2.2 had the shortest plants.
As for height at 85 DAP, genotype 676089 maintained the tallest plants, not significantly
different with genotype 13.1.1 but was comparable with IP84007.67 and 5.19.2.2.
Among the ten genotypes, eight have increased in height. Two genotypes showed
decrease in height at 85 DAP. The decrease could be attributed to late blight infection
which affected the main branch of the plants. The measured part was the remaining
secondary branches. Fig. 5 and 6 show the plants at 45 DAP.
Table 4. Height at 30 and 85 DAP of ten potato genotypes
HEIGHT*
GENOTYPE
(cm)
30 DAP
85 DAP
IP84007.67 24.33
25.43ab
380251.17 21.20
11.87cd
676070 21.30
25.90ab
5.19.2.1 11.87
16.53bcd
573275 19.13
19.43abcd
676089 26.67
30.83a
5.19.2.2 23.50
29.27ab
13.1.1 16.43
30.70a
Kennebec 13.47
6.67d
Ganza 17.83
22.77abc
CV (%)
16.29
24.70
*Means with common letter are not significant by DMRT (P > 0.05).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
20
Fig. 5. The plants at 45 days after planting
Fig. 6. The plants at 45 days after planting
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
21
Haulm Weight
Table 5 shows the haulm weight of ten potato genotypes per plant. There were no
significant differences observed, however, numerically genotype IP84007.67 had the
highest haulm weight. Kennebec had the lowest haulm weight produced. Low haulm
weights were obtained from the most of the genotypes, which could be due to late blight
infection.
Table 5. Haulm weight of ten potato genotypes
HAULM WEIGHT
GENOTYPE
(g/plant)
IP84007.67 28.5
380251.17 10.6
676070 22.6
5.19.2.1 10.7
573275
9.0
676089 10.0
5.19.2.2 20.1
13.1.1 10.7
Kennebec
2.1
Ganza 14.6
CV (%)
38.7
Late Blight Incidence
Late blight rating of the ten potato genotypes at 45, 60 and 75 DAP is shown in
Table 6. At 45 DAP, all of the genotypes were highly resistant. At 60 DAP, genotypes
380251.17, 5.19.2.1 and Kennebec were still resistant. At 75 DAP, IP84007.67, 676070
and 13.1.1 remained resistant while the other genotypes were susceptible to late blight.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
22
The late blight infection maybe attributed to the high rainfall which directly affected the
relative humidity. Pathologists reported high late blight infection when relative humidity
is increased (Anonymous, 2006).
It was observed that all genotypes were resistant to late blight at 60 DAP before
rainfall had occurred. The resistance of the genotypes could be due to the organic matter
present in the medium which nourished the plants. This was confirmed by claims that
soil organic matter feed soil biota with the practice of cover crops, compost and
biologically-based soil amendments. This kind of practice produces healthy plants that
able to resist disease and insect predation (Anonymous, 2005).
Table 6. Late blight incidence of ten potato genotypes at 45, 60 and 75 DAP
LATE BLIGHT RATING
GENOTYPE
45 DAP
60 DAP
75 DAP
IP84007.67 1 1 3
380251.17 1
3
7
676070 1
1
3
5.19.2.1 1
2
6
573275 1
1
5
676089 1
1
6
5.19.2.2 1
2
8
13.1.1 1
1
3
Kennebec 1
2
8
Ganza 1
1
6
CV (%)
25.35
20.70
22.08
Rating scale: 1 – Highly resistant; 2-3 – Resistant; 4-5 – Moderately resistant; 6-7
– Moderately susceptible; 8-9 – Susceptible.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
23
Leaf Miner Incidence
There was no incidence of leaf miner among the ten potato genotypes. Plants were
not infested with any insect during the conduct of the study. This could be attributed to
the diversity of plants present in the area. This confirms the claim of Pawar (2005) that
crop diversification could reduce pest incidence, improved weed control, reduced soil
erosion, the recycling of nutrient reserves from depth of soil and transfer of nitrogen from
nitrogen fixing species.
Yield and Yield Components
Marketable, Non-marketable and Total Yield Per Plant
Table 7 shows the marketable yield of ten potato genotypes per plant.
Numerically, genotype 676089 and Ganza produced the highest yield of marketable
tubers while genotype 5.19.2.1 produced the lowest. However, there were no significant
differences observed among the ten genotypes.
Genotype 676089 produced the highest non-marketable yield per plant, but no
significant differences were observed (Table 7). Genotype 676089 had the highest total
yield per plant. The high yield of 676089 and Ganza could be attributed to highly
vigorous plants and moderate resistance to blight infection. Fig. 7 A-J shows the
marketable and non-marketable tuber of the ten potato genotypes.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
24
Table 7. Marketable, non-marketable and total yield per plant of ten potato genotypes
YIELD
GENOTYPE
(g/plant)
MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE
TOTAL
IP84007.67 47.69 8.39
56.09
380251.17 64.17
16.38
80.55
676070 37.80
6.19
43.99
5.19.2.1 23.50
5.67
29.17
573275 39.30
7.50
46.80
676089 82.50
32.33
114.83
5.19.2.2 45.18
5.71
50.59
13.1.1 50.41
14.58
65.00
Kennebec 47.14
5.42
52.57
Ganza 84.07
8.24
92.31
CV (%)
28.64
42.47
27.71
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
25
380251.17
IP84007.67
A
B
676070
5.19.2.1
C
D
573275
E
Fig. 7. Marketable and non-marketable yields of A- IP84007.67; B- 380251.17; C-
676070; D- 5.19.2.1; E- 573275
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
26
5.19.2.2
676089
F
G
KENNEBEC
13.1.1
H
I
GANZA
J
Fig. 7. Marketable and non-marketable yields of F- 676089; G- 5.19.2.2; H-
13.1.1; I- Kennebec; J- Ganza
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
27
Other Parameters
Dry Matter Content (DMC)
Table 8 shows the dry matter content of tubers of the ten potato genotypes.
Highly significant differences of tubers were noted among the ten genotypes. Genotype
676089 obtained the highest tuber DMC, but not significantly different with Kennebec.
Genotype 380251.17 had the lowest DMC of tubers.
DMC of tubers ranged from 18 to 24 %, an indication of good processing types of
potatoes. Earlier reports show that processing potatoes should have at least 18 % DMC.
Table 8. Dry matter content of tuber of ten potato genotypes
DRY MATTER CONTENT*
GENOTYPE
(%)
IP84007.67 19cd
380251.17 18d
676070 21b
5.19.2.1 20bc
573275 20bc
676089 24a
5.19.2.2 20bc
13.1.1 19cd
Kennebec 23a
Ganza 20bc
CV (%)
3.17
*Means with common letter are not significant by DMRT (P > 0.05).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
28
Cost and Return Analysis
The cost and return analysis is based on the intended use of the harvested tubers.
The farmer intended to use the tubers as planting material or seed purposes. Since the
tubers were grown from stem cuttings, these were considered as G1 tubers. G1 tubers were
priced at P 2.00 per piece at the Bureau of Plant Industry and Northern Philippines Root
Crops Research and Training Center (Table 9).
Positive ROCE was obtained from seven genotypes. Genotype 380251.17 had the
highest with 188.0 % followed by Ganza with 92.0% and IP84007.67, 676070 and
676089 with 60.0 %.
A positive ROCE implies that organic seed tuber production is profitable
considering the demand of organic potatoes by farmers and consumers in the locality
(Acosta, 2006).
Table 9. Cost and return analysis on potato production (per ten plants basis)
TOTAL COST
TOTAL
GENOTYPE
OF
NUMBER OF
GROSS
NET
ROCE
PRODUCTION*
TUBERS**
INCOME
INCOME
(%)
IP84007.67 62.50 50
100.00
37.50
60.0
380251.17 62.50
90
180.00
117.50
188.0
676070 62.50
50
100.00
37.50
60.0
5.19.2.1 62.50
30
60.00
-2.50
-4.0
573275 62.50
40
80.00
17.50
28.0
676089 62.50
50
100.00
37.50
60.0
5.19.2.2 62.50
30
60.00
-2.50
-4.0
13.1.1 62.50
40
80.00
17.50
28.0
Kennebec 62.50
30
60.00
-2.50
-4.0
Ganza 62.50
60
120.00
57.50
92.0
*Total cost of production includes cost of plastic pots, stem cuttings and labor.
**The tubers were sold as G1 seed tubers and at P2 .00/tuber (NPRCRTC, 2005).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
29
Farmer’s Selection and Reasons for Choice
Table 10 shows the selected potato genotypes by the farmer. After harvest, the
organic practitioner, Mr. Acosta selected only three genotypes. He based his selection on
resistance to late blight, high yield and the physical appearance of the tubers.
IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza were the selected genotypes. Fig. 8 shows Mr. Acosta
selecting the genotypes and the tubers of genotypes he selected.
Table 10. Genotypes selected by the farmers and reasons for choice
GENOTYPE REASON
IP84007.67
Smooth skin, resistance to late blight
676089
High yield, resistance to late blight
Ganza
High yield, resistance to late blight
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
30
A
676089
IP84007.67
B
C
GANZA
D
Fig. 8. A- Mr. Acosta selecting the potato genotypes; B-D – Selected potato
genotypes by Mr. Acosta; B- IP84007.67; C- 676089; D- Ganza
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
31
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at Master’s Garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet from
October 2005 to January 2006. This study aimed to: determine the growth and yield of
the potato genotypes; determine the best potato genotypes in terms of yield, disease and
insect resistance; determine the economic benefit of organic potato production using
different genotypes; and determine which of the genotypes will be selected by the farmer.
Genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2, Kennebec, and Ganza were observed to have highly
vigorous plants at 35 DAP. Genotype 676089 produced the tallest plants, had the highest
weight of tubers and highest dry matter content of tubers. Genotypes IP84007.67,
676070 and 13.1.1 were resistant to late blight. In terms of ROCE for seed tuber
production, genotype 380251.17 obtained the highest.
Conclusion
Based on the results, genotype 676089 could be best grown in plastic pots under
organic production at Master’s Garden due to highly vigorous plants, tallest plants, high
yield and high dry matter content of tubers and resistance to late blight. Genotypes
IP84007.67, 676070 and 13.1.1 could also be grown under the conditions of the study as
shown by their resistance to late blight.
Most of the genotypes are profitable when sold as seed tubers. Yield and
resistance to late blight are the primary basis for selection by the organic practitioner and
was satisfied by genotypes IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
32
Recommendation
Based on the findings of this study, genotypes IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza are
recommended at Master’s Garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet.
High profit could be obtained if G1 tubers will be sold as organic seeds or planting
materials.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
33
LITERATURE CITED
ACOSTA, A. L. 2005. Personal communication. Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet.
__________ 2006. Personal communication. Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet
ANONYMOUS. 1996 Organic farming research foundation.
http://www.ofrf.org/general.About organic/.
_____________. 2005 Organic farming research foundation.
http://www.ofrf.org/general.About organic/.
_____________. 2006. http://www.idaho/plant disease/plbcul.htm.
BAY-AN, J. D. 2001. Advanced yield trial potato clones in Englandad, Paoay,
Atok, Benguet. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 3-4.
BALAOING, J. D. 1995. A Report About Organic Fertilizer and it’s Importance to the
Soil Properties. Benguet State University. P.5.
BRIONES, A. 1997. Sustainable Development Trough Organic Agriculture. Department
of Science and Technology. Pp. 18-19.
CAMPBELL, B. L., NELSON, R.G. 1995. Effects of long-term amendments and soil
solarization. www.inta.gov.ar/sanpedro/info/bol/128-bb.htm.
EVANYLO, G., DANIEL, W. L. 1991. Economic and environmental effects of compost
use for sustainable vegetable production. www. sare. org/reporting/report.html.
GIBSON, N. J. 2002. Evaluation and correlation analysis in five promising
genotypes under La Trinidad, Benguet condition. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet
Pp. 11-12.
HALUSCHAK, D., McKENZIE, C. AND PANCHUK, K. 2004. Commercial potato
production–field selection, soil management and fertility. http://
www.okstateedu/ag/agedcm4h/pearl/hort/vegetable/f6028.html.
HSHUAN CHEN J., TZUNG WU J. AND WEI - TIN HUANG. 2001. Effects of
compost on the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in strongly acidic soils.
Organic Fertilizer. Taipei City. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center. P. 89.
MOTES J. E., CRISWELL J. T. 2000. Potato production. http://www.nsf,lk/jnsc/full
ext/june 2000/article 5.pdf.
NPRCRTC. 2005. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 25.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
34
PAWAR, V. M., PURI, S. N. 2005. Organic Farming. http://www
in/agri/extension./html/.
PCARRD. 1979. The Philippine recommends for potato. Laguna, Philippines. P. 36.
PCARRD. 1982. Benguet techno guide for potato. Laguna, Philippines. P 5.
PCARRD. 2000. Sustainable development through organic agriculture. Laguna
Philippines. Pp. 8-9.
POINCELOT, R. 1986. Towards a more sustainable agriculture. Connecticut, AVI
Publishing. Company. Inc. Pp. 26-27.
SINGH, G. 1999. Importance of variety evaluation In organic farming.
www.onefish.org/archive/sifar./SESINDIC.AC.
VALENTE, F., VACCARINA. C. 1987. Effects to dilute organic chemicals. www.lib.
Utexas. Edu/taro.ttuua/00029/00029-P.html.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
35
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Plant vigor at 35 DAP of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 3 4 4 11 4b
380251.17 5 5 4 14
5ab
676070 5
3
5
13
4ab
5.19.2.1 3
4
4
11
4b
573275 4
4
5
13
4ab
676089 5
5
5
15
5a
5.19.2.2 5
5
5
15
5a
13.1.1 4
5
5
14
5ab
Kennebec 5 5
5
15
5a
Ganza 5
5
5
15
5a
TOTAL 44
45
47
136
46
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.467
0.233
Treatment 9
7.467
0.830
2.69* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
5.533
0.307
TOTAL 29
13.467
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 12.23 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
36
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Plant height at 30 DAP of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 18.6 24.0 30.4 73.0
24.33
380251.17
19.6 25.7 18.3 63.3
21.20
676070
22.5 18.0 23.4 63.9
21.30
5.19.2.1
7.1 14.0 14.5 35.6
11.87
573275
18.6 22.0 16.3 57.4
19.13
676089
27.1 28.7 24.2
8.0
26.67
5.19.2.2
23.3 23.5 23.7 70.5
23.50
13.1.1
12.8 17.0 19.5 49.3
16.43
Kennebec
12.7 13.9 13.8 40.4
13.47
Ganza
18.0 15.2 20.3 53.5
17.83
TOTAL
180.3
202.5
204.4
587.2
195.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
35.909
17.954
Treatment 9
611.352
67.928
6.68** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
183.038
10.169
TOTAL 29
830.299
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.29 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
37
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Plant height at 85 DAP of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 26.6 23.7 26.0 76.3 25.43ab
380251.17 20.0 0
15.6
35.6
11.87cd
676070
35.6 17.6 24.5 77.7 25.90ab
5.19.2.1
14.7 17.2 17.7 49.6 16.52bcd
573275
25.0 16.3 17.0 58.3 19.43abcd
676089
37.0 26.8 28.7 92.5 30.83a
5.19.2.2
45.0 24.5 18.3 87.0 29.27ab
13.1.1
37.6 25.0 29.5 92.1 30.70a
Kennebec 0
20.0
0
20.0
6.67d
Ganza
29.8 13.6 24.9 68.3 22.77abc
TOTAL
271.3 184.7 202.2 657.4
219.39
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
419.562
209.781
Treatment 9
1,825.343
202.816
3.81** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
958.452
53.247
TOTAL 29
3,203.352
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 24.73 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
38
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Haulm weight (g) of ten potato genotypes per plant
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 50.0 16.7 18.8 85.5 28.5
380251.17 6.7
0
25.0
31.7
10.6
676070
22.9 17.5 27.5 67.9 22.6
5.19.2.1 7.5
2.0
22.5
32.0
10.7
573275 15.0
1.0
11.0
27.0
9.0
676089
17.0 8.0 5.0 30.0 10.0
5.19.2.2
12.9 37.5 10.0 60.4 20.1
13.1.1
23.3 6.3 1.6 31.2 10.7
Kennebec
2.0 1.4 2.9 6.3 2.1
Ganza
9.4 10.0 24.4 43.8 14.6
TOTAL
166.7 100.4 149.2 416.3 138.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 237.173
118.586
Treatment 9
1,616.485
179.609
1.54ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
2,096.321
116.462
TOTAL 29
3,949.979
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 38.70 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
39
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Late blight rating of ten potato genotypes at 45 DAP
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 1 1 1 3 1
380251.17 2
1
1 4
1
676070 1
1
1
3
1
5.19.2.1 1
1
1
3
1
573275 1
1
1
3
1
676089 1
1
1
3
1
5.19.2.2 2
1
1
4
1
13.1.1 1
1
1
3
1
Kennebec 1
1
1
3
1
Ganza 2
1
1
4
1
TOTAL
13
10
10
33
10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.600
0.300
Treatment 9
0.700
0.078
1.0ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
1.400
0.078
TOTAL 29
2.700
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 25.35 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
40
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Late blight rating of ten potato genotypes at 60 DAP
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 1 2 1 4 1
380251.17 5
2
1 8
3
676070 2
1
1
4
1
5.19.2.1 2
2
1
5
2
573275 1
1
1
3
1
676089 2
1
1
4
1
5.19.2.2 4
2
1
7
2
13.1.1 1
1
1
3
1
Kennebec 1
4
1
6
2
Ganza 2
1
1
4
1
TOTAL
21
17
10
48
15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 6.200
3.100
Treatment 9
8.533
0.948
1.04ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
16.467
0.915
TOTAL 29
31.200
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 20.70 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
41
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Late blight rating of ten potato genotypes at 75 DAP
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 2 7 1 10
3
380251.17 9
7
4 20
7
676070 6
2
1
9
3
5.19.2.1 4
5
9
18
6
573275 7
7
1
15
5
676089 8
7
4
19
6
5.19.2.2 8
7
8
23
8
13.1.1 2
5
2
9
3
Kennebec 6
9
9
24
8
Ganza 8
8
2
18
6
TOTAL
60
64
41
165
55
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
30.200
15.100
Treatment 9
92.833
10.315
1.85ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
100.467
5.581
TOTAL 29
223.500
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 22.08 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
42
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Weight of marketable (g) tubers per plant of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 71.42
26.66
45.0
143.08
47.69
380251.17 40.00
12.5
140.0
192.50
64.17
676070 57.14
18.75
37.5
113.39
37.80
5.19.2.1 15.00
7.00
48.5
70.50
23.50
573275 36.33
43.75
37.5
117.91
39.30
676089 125
87.5
35.0
247.5
82.50
5.19.2.2 34.28
61.25
40.0
135.53
45.18
13.1.1 41.66
26.25
83.33
151.24
50.41
Kennebec 70.00
26.42
45.0
141.42
47.14
Ganza 77.77
80.00
94.44
252.21
84.07
TOTAL 568.93
380.08
606.27
1,565.28
521.76
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2,670.657
1,335.329
Treatment 9
10,118.656
1,124.295
1.23ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
116,436.311
913.239
TOTAL 29
29,227.624
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 28.64 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
43
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Weight of non-marketable (g) tubers per plant of ten potato
genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 11.42
10.00
3.75 25.17
8.39
380251.17 6.66
12.50
30.00
49.16
16.38
676070 8.57
5.00
5.00
18.57
6.19
5.19.2.1 5.00
2.50
9.50
17.00
5.67
573275 10.00
3.75
8.75
22.50
7.50
676089 11.00
75.00
11.00
97.00
32.33
5.19.2.2 7.14
5.00
5.00
17.14
5.71
Kennebec 5.00
4.28
7.00
16.28
5.42
13.1.1 18.33
8.75
16.66
42.74
14.58
Ganza 10.00
2.50
12.22
24.72
8.24
TOTAL 93.12
129.28
108.88
331.28
110.42
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
65.736
32.868
Treatment 9 1,902.590
211.399
1.20ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
3,106.097
175.561
TOTAL 29
5,128.423
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 42.47 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
44
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Total yield (g) of tubers per plant of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 82.85
36.66
48.75
168.26
56.09
380251.17 46.66
25.00
170.00
241.66
80.55
676070 65.71
23.75
42.50
131.96
43.99
5.19.2.1 20.00
9.50
58.00
87.50
29.17
573275 46.66
47.50
46.75
140.41
46.80
676089 136.00
162.50
46.00
344.50
114.83
5.19.2.2 41.42
66.75
45.00
152.67
50.89
13.1.1 60.00
35.00
100.00
195.00
65.00
Kennebec 75.00
30.71
52.00
157.71
52.57
Ganza 87.77
82.50
106.66
276.93
92.31
TOTAL 662.01
519.37
715.16
1,896.6
632.20
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2,050.519
1,025.259
Treatment 9
17,787.512
1,976.390
1.43ns 2.46
3.60
Error
18 24,791.760
TOTAL
29 44,629.791
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 27.71 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
45
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Dry matter content (%) of tubers of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 19 20 19 58
19cd
380251.17
18
18
18
54
18d
676070
21 22 21 64
21b
5.19.2.1
20 20 20 60
20bc
573275
20 20 19 59
20bc
676089
24 24 24 72
24a
5.19.2.2
21 20 18 59
20bc
13.1.1
19 20 18 57
19cd
Kennebec
23 24 23 70
23a
Ganza
19 20 20 59
20bc
TOTAL
204
208
200
612
204
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 3.350
1.675
Treatment 9
101.242
11.249
27.06** 2.46 3.60
Error 18
7.483
0.416
TOTAL 29
112.075
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 3.17 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
MONTES, FROILAN R. APRIL 2006. Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in
an Organic Farm at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet.
Adviser: Belinda A. Tad-awan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to: determine the growth and yield of potato genotypes
at Master’s Garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet; determine the best potato genotypes in
terms of yield, disease and insect pest resistance; determine the economic benefit of
organic potato production using different genotypes; and determine which of the
genotypes will be selected by the farmer.
Genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2, Kennebec and Ganza were observed to have
produced plants which are highly vigorous at 35 days after planting (DAP). Genotype
676089 produced the tallest plants, the highest weight of tubers and highest dry matter
content of tubers. Genotypes IP84007.67, 676070, and 13.1.1 were observed to be
resistant to late blight at 60 and 75 DAP. For the cost and returns for seed tuber
production, genotype 380251.17 obtained the highest return on cash expense.
Based on the results, genotype 676089 is the best grown in plastic pots under
organic production at Master’s Garden due to highly vigorous and tall plants, high yield,
high dry matter content of tubers and resistance to late blight. Genotypes IP84007.67,
676070, and 13.1.1 could be grown under the conditions of the study as shown by their
resistance to late blight.
IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza were selected by the organic practitioner based on
yield and resistance to late blight.
Profits can be obtained in most of the genotypes if sold as seed tubers. High profit
could be obtained if G1 tubers will be sold as organic seeds or planting materials.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Climatic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Chemical Properties of the
Planting Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Growth Parameters
18
Plant Vigor at 35 DAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Height at 30 and 85 DAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Haulm Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Late Blight Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Leaf Miner Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Yield and Yield Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Marketable, Non-Marketable
and Total Yield Per Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Dry Matter Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Cost and Return Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
iii
Farmer’s Selection and Reasons for Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
iv
INTRODUCTION
The
potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of mankind’s most valuable food. It
produces more energy and protein per cultivated area and per unit of time than most other
major crops (CIP 1988). Potato has a high nutritive value being particularly rich in
carbohydrates, protein, minerals and vitamins. It ranks first, both in popularity and
value among the vegetable crops grown in the northern provinces of the Philippines. A
total area of 2,000 to 3,000 hectares is planted annually to potato in Benguet and
Mountain Province, the country’s main potato production areas, but productivity has not
yet reached maximum potential (PCARRD, 1982).
Conventional practices of potato production employs the use of inorganic
fertilizers and chemical pesticides. However, this kind of practice will lead to
environmental degradation according to researches. The water is contaminated, the air is
being polluted and the soil is turning acidic. An alternative practice to these problems is
organic farming. According to Briones (1997), organic farming employs the use of
organic fertilizers, diverse cropping system, sanitation and without the use of any
chemical pesticides. An example of an organic farm is the Master’s garden at Puguis, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Another practice in organic farming is the use of resistant varieties against
diseases and insects. Resistant varieties would minimize the use of synthetic fungicides
and insecticides, thus, evaluation of varieties under organic production is important. In
this kind of practice, food production will become sustainable, because not only soil
fertility is improved but also increased crop production. Farmers not only use low inputs
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
2
in the production but also they can gain high profit. Products are also safe to eat since
there are no harmful chemical content.
The objectives of the study were to:
1. determine the growth and yield of potato genotypes at Master’s Garden,
Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet;
2. determine the best potato genotypes in terms of yield, disease and insect pest
resistance;
3. determine the economic benefit of organic potato production using different
genotypes; and
4. determine which of the genotypes will be selected by the organic farmer.
This study was conducted at Master’s garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet from
October 2005 to January 2006.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Organic Farming Defined
According to Briones (1997), Organic Agriculture (OA) is the traditional term
used by the farmers to include all the diverse farming system without the use of chemical
inputs. Further, organic agriculture promotes and enhances a holistic production
management, which includes agro-ecosystem, health including bio-diversity, biological
cycles and soil biological activity. Crop rotations, green manuring recycling of farm
manure as other ecological ways of building up soil fertility and productivity were the
appropriate practiced in organic farming.
Components of Organic Farming
Use of organic fertilizers. Composting can be an effective strategy to stabilize
paper mill residuals prior to land application (Valente et al, 1987; Campbell et al, 1995).
According to Evanylo and Daniels (1991) the composting process biologically stabilize
heterogeneous raw paper mill residuals reduces mass and volume and thus handling and
hauling cost.
According to Balaoing (1995), the nutrient content of organic fertilizer
particularly in rice straw has N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na and S. The soil reaction with the
exception of urea, becomes acidic if inorganic fertilizers are used for a longer period of
time. Organic fertilizers stimulate and increase a much greater extent of microbial
populations in the soil. Organic fertilizer aids the plants in absorbing more nutrients
already present in the soil, the soil turns black because of rich in humus. Moisture retains
longer, and preventing the crops from drying up when the soil is rich in organic matter. It
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
4
minimizes pollution because the compost was recycled from rotten wastes. And most of
all organic fertilizer is cheaper.
Organic farmers build healthy soils by nourishing the living component of the
soil, its microbial inhabitants that release, transform and transfer nutrients. The soil
organic matter, will contributes to good soil structure and water holding capacity,
Organic farmers feed soil biota and built soil organic matter with the practice of cover
crops, compost and biologically based soil amendments. This kind of practice will
produce healthy plants that able to resist disease and insect predation (Anonymous,
2005).
Crop protection in organic farming. Pest control is done without applying
chemical methods. The strategy of organic farmers in controlling pest and diseases is
prevention through good plant nutrition and management. With the use of cover crops
and sophisticated crop rotations that will change the field ecology, effectively disrupting
the habitat for weeds, insects and disease organisms. Organic farmers are relying on a
diverse population of soil organisms, beneficial insects and birds to keep the pests in
check. When pest populations get out of balance, growers will implement a variety of
strategies such as the use of predators, mating disruption, traps and barriers, growers are
required to use sanitation and cultural practices first before they can resort to applying an
organic pesticides to control the weed, pests and disease problems (Pawar, 2005).
Diversity in organic farming. As cited by Pawar (2005), diverse cropping as crop
production will follow the pattern in time and space. This practice will include multistory
cropping, mixed cropping, crop rotation, strip and relay intercropping etc. It enhances
ecological benefits simultaneously, which maintains efficiency of production. The
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
5
benefits of crop diversification includes: increased yield, reduced pest incidence
improved weed control, reduced soil erosion, the recycling of nutrient reserves from
depth of soil and transfer of nitrogen from nitrogen fixing species.
Importance of Variety Evaluation in Organic Farming
The proposed standard of variety selection in organic farming was expectedly
adopted locally that are common in the area, with resistance to pests and diseases, so that
the crop planted have high production. However, the new revisions limit the use of non-
organically produced seeds. Therefore, farmers are required to use-certified organic
seed; bulbs, tubers, cuttings, annual seedlings, that it should be transplanted when readily
available. All propagation materials used in organic farming must be of organic in origin.
Organic farmers need the varieties that are adapted well to specific soil and fertility
conditions. In several circumstances varieties that do not perform well in organic system
have different yield rankings. In selection the right variety the farmer must also consider
the consumer requirement, supermarket requirement, variety maturity in order to achieve
the best production needed (Singh, 1999).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Farm
The Master’s Garden is located at Sitio Pinalyok, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet.
It is 2 km from Naguilan Road. When passing at Tam-awan Village Longlong, La
Trindad, Benguet, the farm is 2 km away. The elevation of the farm is 1,342 m asl and
15o13” east latitude and longitude (Fig. 1).
The Master’s Garden is an organic farm, with an area of 1,500 m2 producing
mainly vegetables. The topography is terraced and every terrace is constructed with a
greenhouse. The planting area were beds constructed with bricks measuring 1 m width
with no constant length. These bricks are permanently cemented (Fig. 2).
The crops being planted are different varieties of lettuce and other greens like
zucchini garden peas, arugula and bush beans. Other vegetables include carrots, broccoli,
cucumber, tomatoes and cabbage and sugar beets. Some herbs are also planted in small
scale like marjoram, thyme, basil, rosemary, parsely, lemon balm, dill, sage, mint, chives,
oregano and tarragon.
The Farmer and His Practices
Mr. Ambrosio L. Acosta is 46 years old, completed a degree of Bachelor of Science
in Agriculture major in Horticulture at the University of the Philippines, Los Baños,
Laguna (UPLB).
Mr. Acosta is an organic practitioner for six years producing various crops. He
attended various trainings such as; Organic Farming seminar at Sta. Cruz, California,
USA; Willitt’s Bio Intensive Farming at California; Rodale Organic farming at New
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
7
York, USA and the first Organic Congress held at BSU this year. He is a full time farmer
and has three employees. The income he generated in 2004 and 2005 is P 360,000.00
from his main crop, lettuce.
Compost
making. Fresh shredded grasses are placed in one corner and sprayed
with Effective Microorganism (EM1). After two weeks, the compost is ready to be
applied as fertilizer for seedling production.
Nursery
management. Seedlings are planted in trays. After two weeks from seed
emergence, the seedlings are transferred to small plastic pots. Two weeks after, the
seedlings are transplanted in beds of the greenhouse.
Land
preparation. The soil is dug with the use of Japanese hoe with a deep plow
of about 12 inches.
Organic fertilizer application. Fertilizer application is basal. Hilling up is done
only in cabbage and broccoli, by making mounds between rows before planting. After
two weeks mounds are spread at the base of the plants.
Irrigation. Sprinkler method is used.
Pest and disease management. Insect pest and diseases are controlled by a
combination of the following: crop rotation; mix cropping; spraying of Bacillus
thurengiensis (Bt) and use of resistant varieties.
Harvesting. Harvesting is staggered, because of diversity of crops planted in the
farm.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
8
The Experiment Proper
Preparation of Planting Materials
First, potato mother plants were established from the different genotypes. When
the mother plants have produced apical shoots, these were ready for stem cutting
production. Apical shoots were cut when mother plants have three to four simple leaves.
The shoots were cut just above the node using a sterilized sharp scarpel or blade. The
blades were dipped in soap or lysol solution before cutting the next plant. Sanitation was
employed to prevent the spread of diseases and viruses.
The composition of the soil for rooting is one sack carbonized rice hull, 1/3 sack of
compost and two sacks of subsoil. The soil mixture was moistened, covered with plastic
and left for two weeks before used for rooting. The stem cuttings were rooted for 10 to
14 days in the nursery before transplanting in pots.
Lay-out of the Experiment and Treatments
The genotypes were laid out following randomized complete block design (RCBD)
with three replications as follows:
GENOTYPE
ORIGIN
T1 – IP84007.67
CIP, Peru
T2 – 380251.17
CIP, Peru
T3 – 676070
CIP, Peru
T4 – 5.19.2.1
Philippines
T5 – 573275
CIP, Peru
T6 – 676089
CIP, Peru
T7 – 5.19.2.2
Philippines
T8 – 13.1.1
CIP, Peru
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
9
T9 – Kennebec
USA
T10 – Ganza
CIP, Peru
Preparation of Medium for the Establishment of Plants
The planting medium was a mixture of one part compost and two parts of garden
soil. The compost were purely grasses of different species. The collected grasses were
shredded and composted within 14 days with the help of effective microorganisms. Four
kilograms soil mixture was placed in plastic pots to reach 3 to 4 inches depth before
planting. When the plants reached a height of 6 inches, fresh shredded grasses and soil
were added. Green manure was added twice until the pots are filled-up with soil.
Planting and Plant Establishment
Pots measuring 8 x 16 inches were planted with two rooted stem cuttings per pot,
thus a total of 10 plants per treatment in every replication there were 50 pots (Fig. 3 and
4).
Management Practices
All management practices employed from planting to postharvest were all
farmer’s practices. There were no chemical spraying done. Instead, crop protection
relied on diversity of the crops present in the farm.
Irrigation was done using the sprinkler method.
Data Gathered
A. Climatic data
The following meteorological data were taken from BSU- PAGASA:
1. Temperature
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
10
2. Relative Humidity
3. Rainfall
4. Sunshine duration
B. Growth parameters
1. Plant vigor. Plant vigor was taken at 35 days after planting (DAP) using
CIP rating scale (NPRCRTC, 2003).
SCALE DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1
Plants are weak with few stems and
Poor vigor
leaves; very pale
2
Plants are weak with few thin stems
Less vigorous
and leaves; pale
3
Better than less vigorous Moderately
vigorous
4
Plants are moderately strong with
Vigorous
robust stems and leaves; leaves are
light green in color
5
Plants are strong with robust stems
Highly vigorous
and leaves; leaves are light to dark
green in color
2. Height at 30 and 85 DAP. Heights of the plants were measured at 30 and 85
DAP from the base of the plant to the tip of the tallest shoot.
3.
Haulm
weight. This was weighed after separating the roots and tubers at
harvest.
C. Reaction to late blight infection and leaf miner infestation
1. Late blight infection. Rating was done at 45, 60 and 75 DAP using CIP
(Henfling, 1982) rating scale as follows:
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
11
BLIGHT SCALE DESCRIPTION
1
1
No blight to be seen
01-1
1
Very few plants in larger treatment with lesions.
Not more than 2 lesions per 10m of row (+/-30
plants).
1.1- 2
2
Up to 10 small lesions per plant.
3.1-10
3
Up to 30 small lesions per plant or up to 1 each
leaflets attacked.
10.1-24
4
Most plants are visibly attacked and 1 in 3 leaflets
infected. Multiple infections per leaflets.
25-49
5
Nearly every leaflet with lesions. Multiple
infections per leaflets are common. Field or plot
looks green, but all plants in pots are blighted.
50-74
6
Every plant blighted and half the leaf area
destroyed by blight fields look green-flecked, and
brown, blight is very obvious.
75-90
7
As previous, but 3/4 of each plant blighted. Lower
branches may be overwhelmingly killed off,
and the only green leaves, if any, are spindly
due to extensive foliage loss. Field looks neither
brown nor green.
91-97
8
Some leaves and most stems are green. Field looks
brown with some leaves patches.
97.1-99.9 9
Few green leaves almost all with blight lesions
remain. Many stem lesions field looks brown.
100
9
All leaves and stems dead.
Description: 1-Highly resistant; 2-3–Resistant; 4-5–Moderately
resistant; 6 -7–Moderately susceptible; 8-9–Susceptible.
D. Yield and yield components
1. Weight of marketable tubers per plant (g). All tubers with diameter of more
than 1.5 cm were weighed.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
12
2. Weight of non-marketable tubers per plant (g). All tubers that were
malformed, damaged by pest and diseases, injured with greening were weighed.
3. Total yield per plant (g). The total weight of marketable and non-marketable
tubers were taken.
E. Other parameters
1. Dry matter content (DMC). A 20 g fresh tuber sample was weighed and oven
dried for 24 hours at 80 °C. After 24 hours, dry weight was obtained using a sensitive
balance.
Dry matter content of tubers was obtained by the following formula.
% DMC = 100 – % MC
Fresh weight – Oven dry weight
Where: % MC =
X 100
Fresh weight
2. Cost and return analysis. The cost of production, gross sales, net profit and
return on cash expense were determined. Return on cash expense was computed by the
following formula:
Net Profit
Total cost of Production
ROCE % =
X 100
3. Farmer’s selection. At harvest, the farmer selected the genotype of his choice
and cited the reasons for choosing the genotypes.
Data Analysis
All quantitative data was analyzed using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The significance of
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
13
differences among the treatment means was tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test
(DMRT).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
14
Fig. 1. Overview of the greenhouses
Fig. 2. Planting area composed of beds constructed with bricks
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
15
Fig. 3. Planting of rooted stem cuttings in pots
Fig. 4. Pots planted with rooted stem cuttings
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
16
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Climatic Data
Table 1 shows the climatic data during the conduct of the study. The temperature
ranged from 15.57 °C to 24.51°C. Mean relative humidity was 80.81 %. Rainfall is quite
low with an average of 2.01 mm. Sunshine duration ranged from 243.4 to 369.17 Kj
during the conduct of the study.
Temperature, relative humidity and sunshine duration during the conduct of the
study were favorable for potato production as reported by researchers (PCARRD, 1982).
The occurrence of rainfall may have contributed to high humidity which indirectly caused
occurrence of late blight at the later stages of growth.
Table 1. Climatic data of the area during the experiment
TEMPERATURE
RAINFALL
SUNSHINE
MONTH
(°C)
RELATIVE
AMOUNT
DURATION
HUMIDITY
MAX MIN
(mm)
(Kj)
October 24.25
18.25
82.5 0.9 287.1
November 24.51 17.91 79.75
1.6
303.65
December 23.42 16.81 78.62
0
243.4
January 23.15
15.57
82.37 5.57 369.17
MEAN 23.83
17.13
80.81 2.01
301.65
SOURCE: BSU- PAG – ASA (2006).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
17
Chemical Properties of the Planting Medium
Soil pH. Table 2 shows that pH after harvest increased. The increase might be
due to the application of green manure and compost as claimed by earlier researches on
organic fertilizers.
According to Motes and Criswell (2000), potatoes grow well in a wide variety of
soils and soil pH range from 5.0 to 6.5 with satisfactory production.
Soil Organic Matter. Table 2 shows that the organic matter of the medium
decreased from 17.5 % to 6.0 %. The decline could be due to the fact that total amount of
crop residues returned to the soil is low when there is continuous production of crops
such as potato (Motes and Criswell, 2000).
Nitrogen. Nitrogen of the medium also decreased. This could be due to the high
uptake of nutrient needed by the potato plant. Several researchers reported that potatoes
need high amount of nitrogen for growth and development (Motes and Criswell, 2000).
Phosphorous. There was an increase in the total phosphorous content in the
medium. The increase in the phosphorous content may be due to the green manure and
compost incorporated in the soil. This corroborates with the study of Haluschak et al.
(2004) that green manure and compost increase the phosphorus content of the soil.
Balaoing (1995) likewise claimed that rice straw contains N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na and S.
Since the compost used are plant-based materials, these may have the same composition.
Potassium. Potassium in the soil increased. The increase could be attributed to
more available potassium of the planting medium after green manure application.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
18
Table 2. The initial and final analysis of the planting medium
OM
N
P
K
pH
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Before planting
6.64
17.5
0.87
75 2,960
5
After harvest
6.76
6.0
0.3
360 3,000
Source: Bureau of Soils, Pacdal, Baguio City
Growth Parameters
Plant Vigor at 35 DAP
Genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2, Kennebec and Ganza were highly vigorous at 35
DAP (Table 3). Highly vigorous plants maybe due to the amendments incorporated in
the soil. The compost used nutrients that sustained the plants (Acosta, 2005). According
to Balaoing (1995), organic fertilizers aid the plants in absorbing more nutrients and the
soil is rich in humus.
Table 3. Plant vigor of ten potato genotypes at 35 DAP
GENOTYPE PLANT
VIGOR
IP84007.67 Vigorous
380251.17 Highly
vigorous
676070 Vigorous
5.19.2.1 Vigorous
573275 Vigorous
676089 Highly
vigorous
5.19.2.2 Highly
vigorous
13.1.1 Highly
vigorous
Kennebec Highly
vigorous
Ganza Highly
vigorous
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
19
Height at 30 and 85 DAP
Table 4 shows the height of the plants at 30 and 85 DAP. Genotype 676089
significantly produced the tallest plants, while genotype 5.19.2.2 had the shortest plants.
As for height at 85 DAP, genotype 676089 maintained the tallest plants, not significantly
different with genotype 13.1.1 but was comparable with IP84007.67 and 5.19.2.2.
Among the ten genotypes, eight have increased in height. Two genotypes showed
decrease in height at 85 DAP. The decrease could be attributed to late blight infection
which affected the main branch of the plants. The measured part was the remaining
secondary branches. Fig. 5 and 6 show the plants at 45 DAP.
Table 4. Height at 30 and 85 DAP of ten potato genotypes
HEIGHT*
GENOTYPE
(cm)
30 DAP
85 DAP
IP84007.67 24.33
25.43ab
380251.17 21.20
11.87cd
676070 21.30
25.90ab
5.19.2.1 11.87
16.53bcd
573275 19.13
19.43abcd
676089 26.67
30.83a
5.19.2.2 23.50
29.27ab
13.1.1 16.43
30.70a
Kennebec 13.47
6.67d
Ganza 17.83
22.77abc
CV (%)
16.29
24.70
*Means with common letter are not significant by DMRT (P > 0.05).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
20
Fig. 5. The plants at 45 days after planting
Fig. 6. The plants at 45 days after planting
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
21
Haulm Weight
Table 5 shows the haulm weight of ten potato genotypes per plant. There were no
significant differences observed, however, numerically genotype IP84007.67 had the
highest haulm weight. Kennebec had the lowest haulm weight produced. Low haulm
weights were obtained from the most of the genotypes, which could be due to late blight
infection.
Table 5. Haulm weight of ten potato genotypes
HAULM WEIGHT
GENOTYPE
(g/plant)
IP84007.67 28.5
380251.17 10.6
676070 22.6
5.19.2.1 10.7
573275
9.0
676089 10.0
5.19.2.2 20.1
13.1.1 10.7
Kennebec
2.1
Ganza 14.6
CV (%)
38.7
Late Blight Incidence
Late blight rating of the ten potato genotypes at 45, 60 and 75 DAP is shown in
Table 6. At 45 DAP, all of the genotypes were highly resistant. At 60 DAP, genotypes
380251.17, 5.19.2.1 and Kennebec were still resistant. At 75 DAP, IP84007.67, 676070
and 13.1.1 remained resistant while the other genotypes were susceptible to late blight.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
22
The late blight infection maybe attributed to the high rainfall which directly affected the
relative humidity. Pathologists reported high late blight infection when relative humidity
is increased (Anonymous, 2006).
It was observed that all genotypes were resistant to late blight at 60 DAP before
rainfall had occurred. The resistance of the genotypes could be due to the organic matter
present in the medium which nourished the plants. This was confirmed by claims that
soil organic matter feed soil biota with the practice of cover crops, compost and
biologically-based soil amendments. This kind of practice produces healthy plants that
able to resist disease and insect predation (Anonymous, 2005).
Table 6. Late blight incidence of ten potato genotypes at 45, 60 and 75 DAP
LATE BLIGHT RATING
GENOTYPE
45 DAP
60 DAP
75 DAP
IP84007.67 1 1 3
380251.17 1
3
7
676070 1
1
3
5.19.2.1 1
2
6
573275 1
1
5
676089 1
1
6
5.19.2.2 1
2
8
13.1.1 1
1
3
Kennebec 1
2
8
Ganza 1
1
6
CV (%)
25.35
20.70
22.08
Rating scale: 1 – Highly resistant; 2-3 – Resistant; 4-5 – Moderately resistant; 6-7
– Moderately susceptible; 8-9 – Susceptible.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
23
Leaf Miner Incidence
There was no incidence of leaf miner among the ten potato genotypes. Plants were
not infested with any insect during the conduct of the study. This could be attributed to
the diversity of plants present in the area. This confirms the claim of Pawar (2005) that
crop diversification could reduce pest incidence, improved weed control, reduced soil
erosion, the recycling of nutrient reserves from depth of soil and transfer of nitrogen from
nitrogen fixing species.
Yield and Yield Components
Marketable, Non-marketable and Total Yield Per Plant
Table 7 shows the marketable yield of ten potato genotypes per plant.
Numerically, genotype 676089 and Ganza produced the highest yield of marketable
tubers while genotype 5.19.2.1 produced the lowest. However, there were no significant
differences observed among the ten genotypes.
Genotype 676089 produced the highest non-marketable yield per plant, but no
significant differences were observed (Table 7). Genotype 676089 had the highest total
yield per plant. The high yield of 676089 and Ganza could be attributed to highly
vigorous plants and moderate resistance to blight infection. Fig. 7 A-J shows the
marketable and non-marketable tuber of the ten potato genotypes.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
24
Table 7. Marketable, non-marketable and total yield per plant of ten potato genotypes
YIELD
GENOTYPE
(g/plant)
MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE
TOTAL
IP84007.67 47.69 8.39
56.09
380251.17 64.17
16.38
80.55
676070 37.80
6.19
43.99
5.19.2.1 23.50
5.67
29.17
573275 39.30
7.50
46.80
676089 82.50
32.33
114.83
5.19.2.2 45.18
5.71
50.59
13.1.1 50.41
14.58
65.00
Kennebec 47.14
5.42
52.57
Ganza 84.07
8.24
92.31
CV (%)
28.64
42.47
27.71
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
25
380251.17
IP84007.67
A
B
676070
5.19.2.1
C
D
573275
E
Fig. 7. Marketable and non-marketable yields of A- IP84007.67; B- 380251.17; C-
676070; D- 5.19.2.1; E- 573275
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
26
5.19.2.2
676089
F
G
KENNEBEC
13.1.1
H
I
GANZA
J
Fig. 7. Marketable and non-marketable yields of F- 676089; G- 5.19.2.2; H-
13.1.1; I- Kennebec; J- Ganza
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
27
Other Parameters
Dry Matter Content (DMC)
Table 8 shows the dry matter content of tubers of the ten potato genotypes.
Highly significant differences of tubers were noted among the ten genotypes. Genotype
676089 obtained the highest tuber DMC, but not significantly different with Kennebec.
Genotype 380251.17 had the lowest DMC of tubers.
DMC of tubers ranged from 18 to 24 %, an indication of good processing types of
potatoes. Earlier reports show that processing potatoes should have at least 18 % DMC.
Table 8. Dry matter content of tuber of ten potato genotypes
DRY MATTER CONTENT*
GENOTYPE
(%)
IP84007.67 19cd
380251.17 18d
676070 21b
5.19.2.1 20bc
573275 20bc
676089 24a
5.19.2.2 20bc
13.1.1 19cd
Kennebec 23a
Ganza 20bc
CV (%)
3.17
*Means with common letter are not significant by DMRT (P > 0.05).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
28
Cost and Return Analysis
The cost and return analysis is based on the intended use of the harvested tubers.
The farmer intended to use the tubers as planting material or seed purposes. Since the
tubers were grown from stem cuttings, these were considered as G1 tubers. G1 tubers were
priced at P 2.00 per piece at the Bureau of Plant Industry and Northern Philippines Root
Crops Research and Training Center (Table 9).
Positive ROCE was obtained from seven genotypes. Genotype 380251.17 had the
highest with 188.0 % followed by Ganza with 92.0% and IP84007.67, 676070 and
676089 with 60.0 %.
A positive ROCE implies that organic seed tuber production is profitable
considering the demand of organic potatoes by farmers and consumers in the locality
(Acosta, 2006).
Table 9. Cost and return analysis on potato production (per ten plants basis)
TOTAL COST
TOTAL
GENOTYPE
OF
NUMBER OF
GROSS
NET
ROCE
PRODUCTION*
TUBERS**
INCOME
INCOME
(%)
IP84007.67 62.50 50
100.00
37.50
60.0
380251.17 62.50
90
180.00
117.50
188.0
676070 62.50
50
100.00
37.50
60.0
5.19.2.1 62.50
30
60.00
-2.50
-4.0
573275 62.50
40
80.00
17.50
28.0
676089 62.50
50
100.00
37.50
60.0
5.19.2.2 62.50
30
60.00
-2.50
-4.0
13.1.1 62.50
40
80.00
17.50
28.0
Kennebec 62.50
30
60.00
-2.50
-4.0
Ganza 62.50
60
120.00
57.50
92.0
*Total cost of production includes cost of plastic pots, stem cuttings and labor.
**The tubers were sold as G1 seed tubers and at P2 .00/tuber (NPRCRTC, 2005).
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
29
Farmer’s Selection and Reasons for Choice
Table 10 shows the selected potato genotypes by the farmer. After harvest, the
organic practitioner, Mr. Acosta selected only three genotypes. He based his selection on
resistance to late blight, high yield and the physical appearance of the tubers.
IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza were the selected genotypes. Fig. 8 shows Mr. Acosta
selecting the genotypes and the tubers of genotypes he selected.
Table 10. Genotypes selected by the farmers and reasons for choice
GENOTYPE REASON
IP84007.67
Smooth skin, resistance to late blight
676089
High yield, resistance to late blight
Ganza
High yield, resistance to late blight
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
30
A
676089
IP84007.67
B
C
GANZA
D
Fig. 8. A- Mr. Acosta selecting the potato genotypes; B-D – Selected potato
genotypes by Mr. Acosta; B- IP84007.67; C- 676089; D- Ganza
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
31
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at Master’s Garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet from
October 2005 to January 2006. This study aimed to: determine the growth and yield of
the potato genotypes; determine the best potato genotypes in terms of yield, disease and
insect resistance; determine the economic benefit of organic potato production using
different genotypes; and determine which of the genotypes will be selected by the farmer.
Genotypes 676089, 5.19.2.2, Kennebec, and Ganza were observed to have highly
vigorous plants at 35 DAP. Genotype 676089 produced the tallest plants, had the highest
weight of tubers and highest dry matter content of tubers. Genotypes IP84007.67,
676070 and 13.1.1 were resistant to late blight. In terms of ROCE for seed tuber
production, genotype 380251.17 obtained the highest.
Conclusion
Based on the results, genotype 676089 could be best grown in plastic pots under
organic production at Master’s Garden due to highly vigorous plants, tallest plants, high
yield and high dry matter content of tubers and resistance to late blight. Genotypes
IP84007.67, 676070 and 13.1.1 could also be grown under the conditions of the study as
shown by their resistance to late blight.
Most of the genotypes are profitable when sold as seed tubers. Yield and
resistance to late blight are the primary basis for selection by the organic practitioner and
was satisfied by genotypes IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
32
Recommendation
Based on the findings of this study, genotypes IP84007.67, 676089 and Ganza are
recommended at Master’s Garden, Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet.
High profit could be obtained if G1 tubers will be sold as organic seeds or planting
materials.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
33
LITERATURE CITED
ACOSTA, A. L. 2005. Personal communication. Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet.
__________ 2006. Personal communication. Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet
ANONYMOUS. 1996 Organic farming research foundation.
http://www.ofrf.org/general.About organic/.
_____________. 2005 Organic farming research foundation.
http://www.ofrf.org/general.About organic/.
_____________. 2006. http://www.idaho/plant disease/plbcul.htm.
BAY-AN, J. D. 2001. Advanced yield trial potato clones in Englandad, Paoay,
Atok, Benguet. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 3-4.
BALAOING, J. D. 1995. A Report About Organic Fertilizer and it’s Importance to the
Soil Properties. Benguet State University. P.5.
BRIONES, A. 1997. Sustainable Development Trough Organic Agriculture. Department
of Science and Technology. Pp. 18-19.
CAMPBELL, B. L., NELSON, R.G. 1995. Effects of long-term amendments and soil
solarization. www.inta.gov.ar/sanpedro/info/bol/128-bb.htm.
EVANYLO, G., DANIEL, W. L. 1991. Economic and environmental effects of compost
use for sustainable vegetable production. www. sare. org/reporting/report.html.
GIBSON, N. J. 2002. Evaluation and correlation analysis in five promising
genotypes under La Trinidad, Benguet condition. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet
Pp. 11-12.
HALUSCHAK, D., McKENZIE, C. AND PANCHUK, K. 2004. Commercial potato
production–field selection, soil management and fertility. http://
www.okstateedu/ag/agedcm4h/pearl/hort/vegetable/f6028.html.
HSHUAN CHEN J., TZUNG WU J. AND WEI - TIN HUANG. 2001. Effects of
compost on the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in strongly acidic soils.
Organic Fertilizer. Taipei City. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center. P. 89.
MOTES J. E., CRISWELL J. T. 2000. Potato production. http://www.nsf,lk/jnsc/full
ext/june 2000/article 5.pdf.
NPRCRTC. 2005. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 25.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
34
PAWAR, V. M., PURI, S. N. 2005. Organic Farming. http://www
in/agri/extension./html/.
PCARRD. 1979. The Philippine recommends for potato. Laguna, Philippines. P. 36.
PCARRD. 1982. Benguet techno guide for potato. Laguna, Philippines. P 5.
PCARRD. 2000. Sustainable development through organic agriculture. Laguna
Philippines. Pp. 8-9.
POINCELOT, R. 1986. Towards a more sustainable agriculture. Connecticut, AVI
Publishing. Company. Inc. Pp. 26-27.
SINGH, G. 1999. Importance of variety evaluation In organic farming.
www.onefish.org/archive/sifar./SESINDIC.AC.
VALENTE, F., VACCARINA. C. 1987. Effects to dilute organic chemicals. www.lib.
Utexas. Edu/taro.ttuua/00029/00029-P.html.
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
35
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Plant vigor at 35 DAP of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 3 4 4 11 4b
380251.17 5 5 4 14
5ab
676070 5
3
5
13
4ab
5.19.2.1 3
4
4
11
4b
573275 4
4
5
13
4ab
676089 5
5
5
15
5a
5.19.2.2 5
5
5
15
5a
13.1.1 4
5
5
14
5ab
Kennebec 5 5
5
15
5a
Ganza 5
5
5
15
5a
TOTAL 44
45
47
136
46
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.467
0.233
Treatment 9
7.467
0.830
2.69* 2.46
3.60
Error 18
5.533
0.307
TOTAL 29
13.467
* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 12.23 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
36
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Plant height at 30 DAP of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 18.6 24.0 30.4 73.0
24.33
380251.17
19.6 25.7 18.3 63.3
21.20
676070
22.5 18.0 23.4 63.9
21.30
5.19.2.1
7.1 14.0 14.5 35.6
11.87
573275
18.6 22.0 16.3 57.4
19.13
676089
27.1 28.7 24.2
8.0
26.67
5.19.2.2
23.3 23.5 23.7 70.5
23.50
13.1.1
12.8 17.0 19.5 49.3
16.43
Kennebec
12.7 13.9 13.8 40.4
13.47
Ganza
18.0 15.2 20.3 53.5
17.83
TOTAL
180.3
202.5
204.4
587.2
195.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
35.909
17.954
Treatment 9
611.352
67.928
6.68** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
183.038
10.169
TOTAL 29
830.299
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.29 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
37
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Plant height at 85 DAP of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 26.6 23.7 26.0 76.3 25.43ab
380251.17 20.0 0
15.6
35.6
11.87cd
676070
35.6 17.6 24.5 77.7 25.90ab
5.19.2.1
14.7 17.2 17.7 49.6 16.52bcd
573275
25.0 16.3 17.0 58.3 19.43abcd
676089
37.0 26.8 28.7 92.5 30.83a
5.19.2.2
45.0 24.5 18.3 87.0 29.27ab
13.1.1
37.6 25.0 29.5 92.1 30.70a
Kennebec 0
20.0
0
20.0
6.67d
Ganza
29.8 13.6 24.9 68.3 22.77abc
TOTAL
271.3 184.7 202.2 657.4
219.39
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
419.562
209.781
Treatment 9
1,825.343
202.816
3.81** 2.46
3.60
Error 18
958.452
53.247
TOTAL 29
3,203.352
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 24.73 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
38
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Haulm weight (g) of ten potato genotypes per plant
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 50.0 16.7 18.8 85.5 28.5
380251.17 6.7
0
25.0
31.7
10.6
676070
22.9 17.5 27.5 67.9 22.6
5.19.2.1 7.5
2.0
22.5
32.0
10.7
573275 15.0
1.0
11.0
27.0
9.0
676089
17.0 8.0 5.0 30.0 10.0
5.19.2.2
12.9 37.5 10.0 60.4 20.1
13.1.1
23.3 6.3 1.6 31.2 10.7
Kennebec
2.0 1.4 2.9 6.3 2.1
Ganza
9.4 10.0 24.4 43.8 14.6
TOTAL
166.7 100.4 149.2 416.3 138.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 237.173
118.586
Treatment 9
1,616.485
179.609
1.54ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
2,096.321
116.462
TOTAL 29
3,949.979
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 38.70 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
39
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Late blight rating of ten potato genotypes at 45 DAP
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 1 1 1 3 1
380251.17 2
1
1 4
1
676070 1
1
1
3
1
5.19.2.1 1
1
1
3
1
573275 1
1
1
3
1
676089 1
1
1
3
1
5.19.2.2 2
1
1
4
1
13.1.1 1
1
1
3
1
Kennebec 1
1
1
3
1
Ganza 2
1
1
4
1
TOTAL
13
10
10
33
10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.600
0.300
Treatment 9
0.700
0.078
1.0ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
1.400
0.078
TOTAL 29
2.700
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 25.35 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
40
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Late blight rating of ten potato genotypes at 60 DAP
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 1 2 1 4 1
380251.17 5
2
1 8
3
676070 2
1
1
4
1
5.19.2.1 2
2
1
5
2
573275 1
1
1
3
1
676089 2
1
1
4
1
5.19.2.2 4
2
1
7
2
13.1.1 1
1
1
3
1
Kennebec 1
4
1
6
2
Ganza 2
1
1
4
1
TOTAL
21
17
10
48
15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 6.200
3.100
Treatment 9
8.533
0.948
1.04ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
16.467
0.915
TOTAL 29
31.200
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 20.70 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
41
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Late blight rating of ten potato genotypes at 75 DAP
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 2 7 1 10
3
380251.17 9
7
4 20
7
676070 6
2
1
9
3
5.19.2.1 4
5
9
18
6
573275 7
7
1
15
5
676089 8
7
4
19
6
5.19.2.2 8
7
8
23
8
13.1.1 2
5
2
9
3
Kennebec 6
9
9
24
8
Ganza 8
8
2
18
6
TOTAL
60
64
41
165
55
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
30.200
15.100
Treatment 9
92.833
10.315
1.85ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
100.467
5.581
TOTAL 29
223.500
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 22.08 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
42
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Weight of marketable (g) tubers per plant of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 71.42
26.66
45.0
143.08
47.69
380251.17 40.00
12.5
140.0
192.50
64.17
676070 57.14
18.75
37.5
113.39
37.80
5.19.2.1 15.00
7.00
48.5
70.50
23.50
573275 36.33
43.75
37.5
117.91
39.30
676089 125
87.5
35.0
247.5
82.50
5.19.2.2 34.28
61.25
40.0
135.53
45.18
13.1.1 41.66
26.25
83.33
151.24
50.41
Kennebec 70.00
26.42
45.0
141.42
47.14
Ganza 77.77
80.00
94.44
252.21
84.07
TOTAL 568.93
380.08
606.27
1,565.28
521.76
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2,670.657
1,335.329
Treatment 9
10,118.656
1,124.295
1.23ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
116,436.311
913.239
TOTAL 29
29,227.624
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 28.64 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
43
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Weight of non-marketable (g) tubers per plant of ten potato
genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 11.42
10.00
3.75 25.17
8.39
380251.17 6.66
12.50
30.00
49.16
16.38
676070 8.57
5.00
5.00
18.57
6.19
5.19.2.1 5.00
2.50
9.50
17.00
5.67
573275 10.00
3.75
8.75
22.50
7.50
676089 11.00
75.00
11.00
97.00
32.33
5.19.2.2 7.14
5.00
5.00
17.14
5.71
Kennebec 5.00
4.28
7.00
16.28
5.42
13.1.1 18.33
8.75
16.66
42.74
14.58
Ganza 10.00
2.50
12.22
24.72
8.24
TOTAL 93.12
129.28
108.88
331.28
110.42
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2
65.736
32.868
Treatment 9 1,902.590
211.399
1.20ns 2.46
3.60
Error 18
3,106.097
175.561
TOTAL 29
5,128.423
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 42.47 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
44
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Total yield (g) of tubers per plant of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 82.85
36.66
48.75
168.26
56.09
380251.17 46.66
25.00
170.00
241.66
80.55
676070 65.71
23.75
42.50
131.96
43.99
5.19.2.1 20.00
9.50
58.00
87.50
29.17
573275 46.66
47.50
46.75
140.41
46.80
676089 136.00
162.50
46.00
344.50
114.83
5.19.2.2 41.42
66.75
45.00
152.67
50.89
13.1.1 60.00
35.00
100.00
195.00
65.00
Kennebec 75.00
30.71
52.00
157.71
52.57
Ganza 87.77
82.50
106.66
276.93
92.31
TOTAL 662.01
519.37
715.16
1,896.6
632.20
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2,050.519
1,025.259
Treatment 9
17,787.512
1,976.390
1.43ns 2.46
3.60
Error
18 24,791.760
TOTAL
29 44,629.791
ns – Not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 27.71 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
45
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Dry matter content (%) of tubers of ten potato genotypes
BLOCK
GENOTYPE
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IP84007.67 19 20 19 58
19cd
380251.17
18
18
18
54
18d
676070
21 22 21 64
21b
5.19.2.1
20 20 20 60
20bc
573275
20 20 19 59
20bc
676089
24 24 24 72
24a
5.19.2.2
21 20 18 59
20bc
13.1.1
19 20 18 57
19cd
Kennebec
23 24 23 70
23a
Ganza
19 20 20 59
20bc
TOTAL
204
208
200
612
204
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 2 3.350
1.675
Treatment 9
101.242
11.249
27.06** 2.46 3.60
Error 18
7.483
0.416
TOTAL 29
112.075
** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 3.17 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in an Organic Farm
at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet / Froilan R. Montes. 2006
Document Outline
- Growth and Yield of Potato Genotypes in
an Organic Farm at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES