SearchAuthorsKeywordsSubjectsTitlesYear

BIBLIOGRAPHY MULCHINO, REMEE T. ...

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MULCHINO, REMEE T. APRIL 2007. On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole
Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Prof. Guerzon A. Payangdo, MSc
ABSTRACT

On-farm evaluation of potential pole snap bean varieties was conducted at
Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet to determine the pole snap bean variety suited in Gusaran,
Kabayan, Benguet and to determine the economic benefit of planting different pole snap
bean varieties.

The study revealed that Alno, Violeta and Farmer’s variety took five days to pod
setting. Patig, Taichung and Blue Lake took six days. Percent pod setting among the six
varieties ranged from 46-64% per cluster.

The six varieties of pole snap bean significantly differed in their yielding
potential. Violeta and Blue Lake performed significantly better than the other varieties in
pod clusters per plant, pods per plant and number and weight of marketable pods.

The highest yield and highest return on cash expense (ROCE) was obtained from
Blue Lake and Taichung.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


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

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………...
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………………………………..
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS ……………………………………………….
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………………..
10

Number of Days to Emergence
and Flowering ………………………………………………………….
10


Number of Days to Pod Setting ………………………………………..
10

Number of Days to Harvest ……………………………………………
10

Number of Pod Clusters per Plant ……………………………………..
11

Number of Flowers and Pods
per Cluster …………………………………………………………….
11


Percentage Pod Set Per Cluster and Percent
of Pod Abortion ……………………………………………………….
12

Number of Pods per Plant ……………………………………………..
12

Pod Length and Width …………………………………………………
13
Number
of
Marketable and Non-marketable
Pods ……………………………………………………………………
13


Weight of Marketable and Non-marketable
Pods per Plot …………………………………………………………..
14

ii


Total Yield per Plot and Per Hectare ………………………………….
15

Return on Cash Expense (ROCE) ……………………………………..
15
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………
16
Summary
………………………………………………………………
16
Conclusions
……………………………………………………………
17
Recommendation
……………………………………………………… 17
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………………………………
18
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………….
20

iii

INTRODUCTION



Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is grown in many parts of the world under a
wide range of condition. This plant thrives well in cool medium to high altitude in
tropical countries. It is an annual crop adapted to a wide variety of soil.

In the Philippines, snap bean is cultivated mostly in the highlands of the
Cordillera. Two types of snap bean are commercially grown in the province of Benguet.
The vine type or pole snap bean and bush type or sitting snap bean. Since snap bean
production is one of the main sources of income of the farmers in the highlands, its
production should be increased. This could be attained by selecting the variety to be
grown in the area and practicing proper cultural management. Currently, only progressive
farmers know the varieties of snap bean that they are planting. Because of this, no
comprehensive recommendation based on the farmers experience can be attained. In this
case, there is a need to evaluate the different promising line of snap bean to identify the
lines that is most suited in the growing area, particularly in Benguet and Mountain
Province.

Aside from the benefits as money-making crop in the country, snap bean is an
excellent source of proteins and vitamins. It partly contributes a solution to the
malnutrition problem in the country because of its food nutrients. Its protein content is
almost comparable with fish, eggs, meat and rice.

In addition to its role in alleviating malnutrition of the people and its potential as
money-making legume in the highlands, snap bean is also beneficial to the soil. As a
leguminous crop, its roots aided by bacteria have the capacity to fix nitrogen from the air
making the soil fertility level higher than when planted with non-leguminous crop.
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

2
Increasing the production of pole snap beans helps in the improvement of the physical
and chemical characteristics of the soil.

The objectives of the study were to:

1. determine the pole snap bean variety best suited in Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet
condition based on yield and resistance to insects and diseases; and

2. determine the economic benefit of planting different pole snap bean varieties.
This study was conducted at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet from November to
March 2007.















On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) species belonging to the family leguminosae
is glabrious, dwarf and climbing plant. The performance of snap bean plants grown from
seeds produced from different plant portions at different stages of maturity (Kudan,
1999). The results of the study of Bao-an (2000) showed that the snap bean cultivar
stone hill (Patig) developed six nodes flower buds appeared afterwhich took 25 days for
the petals to develop fully from these flower buds (petal break). The percentage of pod
set was higher at 5th base portion followed by middle had 4 to 6 flowers and the upper
portion had six to eight flowers per cluster. According to Kudan (1999), in attaining a
higher percentage of pod set (62.5%) beans will be planted during October to November
while planting in March to May will obtain 30-40 pod percentage. The number of pod
yield of a variety determines the number of flowers per cluster. The more flowers a
variety have the more pods were realized. The number of pods should always be
considered in selecting a variety to plant, as it is associated to higher pod yield. Atos
(1997) evaluated the growth and yield performance of five pole snap bean cultivars.
Results showed that stone hill (patig) and blue lake prime pak yielded the most number of
pod per cluster. The result could be attributed to high yielding potential of the cultivars.

According to Regmi (1990), variety evaluation gathers data on plant character,
yield and pod quality, moreover Shresta (1989) stressed that to determine high yielding
varieties, varietal evaluation is important because different varieties have different
potential. The fresh pod of snap bean or any vegetable legumes are considered
marketable when they are smooth, tender and free from pest and insect damages
(Gonzales, 1983). Some may be fleshy or rounded and other slender or flat (Swiader et.
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

4
al., 2002) The following inflorescence usually takes a long period to develop (Perez,
1983). An average of 4-5 seeds per pod with each weighing 350-620 mg. Snap bean pods
are generally 3 to 8 inches long and 0.25 to 0.75 inch narrow.

Varietal evaluation gathers data on plant character, yield performance and pod
quality, hence we can obtain high yielding and improved cultivars that are known to plant
important role in boosting production (Regmi, 1990). In addition, Cagampang and
Lantican (1977) observed that the choice of variety is important, he further suggested that
in many instances, the wise use of improved variety has resulted to tremendous increase
in yield. Moreover, Bautista and Mabesa (1977) stressed that choosing the right variety
will minimize problems associated with water and fertilizer management so that high
yield will be obtained. On the other hand, growing the wrong variety may mean crop
failure due to low yield and pest infestation.

Yield performance of any variety is affected by environmental conditions such as
soil condition, climate and incidence of pest in snap bean production. Common blight is
a serious disease of snap bean throughout the world. So far, no effective and economical
fungicide has been found to control the diseases (Villareal, 1969). He recommended
some control measures such as the use of disease-free seeds, crop rotation, deep plowing
of the plant debris and use of tolerant cultivars.

In seed production, Ap-apid (1991) found out that the wider the spacing between
hills, the heavier the marketable seed produced per plant. The lightest were produced
from plants with 10 cm distance due to high competition for light and nutrients among
plant per unit area. Similarly, Ingles (1990) found out that density of two seeds per hill at
a distance of 20 cm to 30 cm between hills yielded the heaviest seeds per plot.
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

5
Irrigation is an essential requirement in the farm when rainfall is not secured
without the selection of seeds, application of adequate fertilizer, insect pest and disease
control and the practice improved cultural management could ensure production of crops
with maximum economic returns (Acquision, 1996).

Hampton (1987) explained that a number of factors have been used to estimate
the correct point at which seed is harvestable. This includes seed consistency, seed
shattering, crop, color, leaf senescence and moisture content. He further stressed that
basing harvesting timing on seed consistency over a whole crop especially when
flowering have been spread over a period from only few days to several weeks. The later
situation being a common characteristics of intermediate legumes. However, he also
mentioned that estimating shattering loss in a crop is often a poor indicator of harvest
timing.











On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

6
MATERIALS AND METHODS


An area of 200 m2 was prepared into 18 raised beds measuring 1m x 10 m and
divided into three blocks to accommodate the six treatments following the randomized
complete block design (RCBD). The seeds were sown in a double row following a
distance of 25 cm between hills and rows. To ensure optimum growth yield, proper
trellising crop protection was done two days after emergence and employed to all the
treatments just after the emergency up to the second to last harvest.

The seeds of six varieties of snap beans that served as treatments in this study
were obtained from different sources, which are as follows:
CODE
VARIETY

SOURCE

V1
Alno
BSU-IPBHCRS

V2
Blue
lake
BSU

V3


Patig


BSU

V4
Farmers
(Check
variety)
Kabayan

V5
Violeta
BSU-IPBHCRS

V6
Taichung
BSU-IPBHCRS


The data gathered were the following:
1. Maturity

a. Days to emergence. This was gathered when 75% of plants per plot had
emerged.

b. Days from planting to flowering. This was determined by counting the days
from planting up to the time when 50% of the plants per plot started to produce flowers.
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

7

c. Days from planting to first harvest. This was recorded by counting the days
from planting to first harvest.

d. Days from planting to last harvest. This was recorded by counting the days
from planting to the last harvesting.
2. Growth parameters

a. Number of flowers per cluster. The number of flowers per cluster that were
developed per plant was recorded from five sample clusters per plot (treatment).

b. Number of days to pod setting. This was recorded by counting the days when
50% of the flowers break up and pod measured 1 inch long.

c. Number of pods per cluster. This was recorded by counting the number of pods
per cluster per plant.

d. Number of pod clusters per plant. This was recorded by counting the number
of pod clusters per plant.

e. Percentage pod set per cluster (%). This was determined using the data in
number 4 and 6 as follows:
Total
number
of
pods
per
cluster


Percentage Pod (%) = x 100
Total
number
of
flower
per
cluster


f. Percent abortion (pod fall). This was obtained by getting the difference
between 100% pod setting per treatment and the percent pot set per flower cluster that
was obtained in data number 7.

g. Number of pods per plant. This was gathered using the following formula.
Total
number
of
pods
harvested
per
plot



Number of pods per plant =
Total
number
of
plants
harvested
per
plot
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

8

h. Length of pod at harvest (cm). Ten random sample pods were obtained per
treatment and pod length was measured from pedicel end to distal end using a foot ruler.

i. Width of pod at harvest (cm). This was measured from the ten samples used in
getting the length of pod from its middle portion using foot ruler.
4. Yield and yield components

a. Number and weight of marketable pods per treatment (kg). Marketable pods
that are free from disease and insect damage were counted and weighed.

b. Number and weight of non-marketable pods per treatment (kg). Non-
marketable pods that were diseased, damaged or deformed were also counted and
weighed in kg using weighing scale throughout the harvesting duration.

c. Number of harvesting per treatment. This was recorded by counting the
number of harvest per treatment.

d. Total yield per plot (kg/plot). The total weight of marketable and non-
marketable pods per plot were computed at the end of the harvesting season.

e. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha). This was computed based on the pod yield
per plot in kg/10m2 multiplied by 1,000 which is a factor to covert yield in kg/10m2 to
t/ha.
Total
yield
per
plot
(kg)

Yield per hectare (t/ha) =



x 10,000 m2






10m2


Where 2.0 was a factor used to convert yield in kg/5 m2 into yield per hectare in
t/ha.


On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

9
5. Other data

a. Return on cash expense (ROCE). Production cost, gross net income and ROCE
were determined. ROCE was computed as follows:


Gross sales – total expenses

ROCE = ----------------------------------- x 100


Total expenses


















On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Number of Days to Emergence and Flowering

It was observed that the six varieties emerged from seven to eight days under
Gusaran, Kabayan condition with no significant differences.

In terms of days to flowering, Table 1 shows that Violeta flowered at 71 days
from planting, which was the earliest among the varieties but was comparable with the
rest of the varieties. Differences on the days to flowering could be attributed to the
varietal characteristics.

Number of Days to Pod Setting

Significant differences on the number of days to pod setting were observed among
the six varieties of pole snap bean evaluated (Table 1). Patig, Taichung and Blue Lake
gave numerous pods and also statistically comparable with the other varieties. This could
be the effect of good crop maintenance.

Number of Days to Harvest

No significant differences were observed on the days to first harvest. Varieties
Alno, Violeta and Taichung were harvested 76 days after planting while Patig, Farmers,
and Blue Lake were harvested 77 days after planting.

As to last harvest, there were significant differences noted among the six varieties.
Patig and Blue Lake attained their last harvest in 104 days while Alno attained its last
harvest in 98 days, however, the result was comparable with the other varieties except for
Violeta which was harvested earlier.

On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

11
Table 1. Number of days to emergence, flowering, pod setting, first and last harvesting
of the six varieties of snap bean

VARIETY DAYS
TO:
EMERGENCE FLOWERING
POD
FIRST
LAST
SETTING
HARVESTING HARVESTING
Alno 7
73ab
5ab
76
98b
Patig 8 73ab
6a
77
104a
Violeta 8 71a
5ab
76
98b
Taichung 8 73ab
6a
76
102ab
Farmers 8 74ab
5ab
77
99ab
Blue Lake
7 73ab
6a
77
104a
CV
(%) 5.62 1.60 9.84 1.08 2.80
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% by level DMRT

Number of Pod Clusters Per Plant

The number of pod clusters per plant is presented in Table 2. Violeta produced
significantly the highest number of cluster per plant and which were comparable with the
rest of the varieties.

Number of Flowers and Pods Per Cluster

As to number of flowers per cluster, no significant differences were obtained. On
the pods per cluster, Violeta significantly had the highest number of pods per cluster (3)
and it was comparable with the other five varieties.






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

12
Table 2. Number of clusters per plant, flowers and pods per cluster of the six varieties of
pole snap bean

VARIETY NUMBER
OF:
POD CLUSTERS
FLOWERS PER
PODS PER
PER PLANT
CLUSTER
CLUSTER
Alno 20b
4
2ab
Patig 21ab
5
2ab
Violeta 23a
5
3a
Taichung 22ab
5
2ab
Farmer 20b
4
2ab
Blue Lake
21ab
4
2ab
CV (%)
5.02
14.4
22.44
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level DMRT

Percentage Pod Set Per Cluster and Percent
of Pod Abortion


Statistical analysis showed no significant differences observed on the percentage
pod set and abortion per cluster among the six varieties of the pole snap bean (Table 3).
Violeta had the highest percent pod per cluster with 64%, followed by Blue Lake.

Number of Pods Per Plant

The number of pods per plant is also presented in Table 3. Violeta significantly
produced the highest number of pods per plant (17) followed by Blue Lake with 16 pods
per plant but was comparable to the other varieties except Patig which registered the
lowest pods per plant (12).
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

13
Pod Length and Width

There were significant differences observed on the pod length of the six varieties
of snap bean tested (Table 3). Violeta had the longest pod with 17 cm., followed by Patig
and Taichung. The shortest was noted from Farmers seeds.

As to pod width, significant differences were observed such that Blue Lake
variety was the widest at 1.54 cm followed by Patig. The narrowest was noted from the
rest of the varieties.

Number of Marketable and Non-marketable Pods

As to the number of marketable pods (Table 4), Violeta significantly had the most
marketable pods with 1,193 and was statistically similar with Blue lake with a mean of
1,179 marketable pods. The least of marketable pods was taken from Patig.

Table 3. Percent pod set per cluster, pod abortion, number of pods per plant, pod length
and pod width of the six varieties of pole snap bean


POD
VARIETY
SET PER
ABORTION
PER
LENGTH
WIDTH
CLUSTER
(%)
PLANT
(cm)
(cm)
(%)
Alno 56a
20ab
14ab
14c
1.16c
Patig 53ab
23ab
12b
15b
1.43b
Violeta 64a
20ab
17a
17a
1.15c
Taichung 46b
26a
14ab
15b
1.17c
Farmers 53ab
20ab
14ab
13d
1.13c
Blue Lake
61a
16b
16a
14c
1.54a
CV (%)
13.27
16.56
3.42
1.16
3.42
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

14

As to non-marketable pods, Alno had the highest which is also comparable with
Blue Lake, Farmers and Patig. The lowest was obtained from Violeta and Taichung.

Weight of Marketable and Non-marketable
Pods Per Plot


Pods are considered marketable when they are straight, tender and free from
insect pest damage and disease. The non-marketable pods were diseased, damaged or
malformed.
Significant differences in weight of marketable fresh pods of the six varieties
were noted. Violeta had the highest yield weight of 10 kg/5m2 followed by the other
varieties. As to non-marketable pods, no significant differences were observed

Table 4. Number and weight of marketable and non-marketable pods of the six varieties
of pole snap beans

VARIETY
NUMBER
WEIGHT
MARKETABLE
NON-
MARKETABLE
NON-
PODS
MARKETABLE
PODS
MARKETABLE
PODS
(kg/10m2)
PODS
(kg/10m2)
Alno
860bc
327a
6b
1.07
Patig 756c
241ab
6b
1.06
Violeta 1,193a
180b
10a
0.76
Taichung 996abc
186b
7b
0.80
Farmers 949abc
203ab
6b
0.87
Blue Lake
1,079ab
242ab
8b
1.09
CV (%)
14.71
19.66
16.81
23.18
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

15
Total Yield Per Plot and Per Hectare

It was noted that Violeta had the highest marketable and non-marketable pods per
plot and per hectare followed by the other varieties rated under marketable and non-
marketable pods (Table 5). The significant differences could be due to the effect of
varieties.

Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)

Blue Lake had the highest computed ROCE followed by Taichung (Table 5).

Table 5. Total yield per plot and per hectare and ROCE of the six varieties of pole snap
bean

VARIETY YIELD
PER PLOT
PER HECTARE
ROCE
(kg/10m2)
(t/ha)
(%)
Alno 7.66b
7.66b
39.41
Patig 7.06b
7.06b
27.06
Violeta 11.59a
11.59a
12.94
Taichung 7.80b
7.80b
48.23
Farmers 7.03b
7.03b
30.55
Blue Lake
9.11b
9.11b
69.76
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT








On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

16
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The study aimed to evaluate the six varieties of pole snap beans and to identify
the highest yielding variety of snap bean. This was conducted at Gusaran, Kabayan,
Benguet from November 2006 to March 2007. Violeta flowered earlier at 71 days after
planting (DAP) than the other varieties. It also produced the highest number of cluster
per plant (23), number of flowers per cluster (6) and pod set per cluster (4) than the rest
of the varieties. Farmer’s variety produced the lowest number of flower cluster per plant
(20), number of flower per cluster (4), and pod set per cluster (2). Violeta took only five
days to set pod after flowering. It had the highest percent pod set per cluster with 65%
while Taichung recorded the lowest percent pod set per cluster (46%). Violeta, Alno and
Taichung were the first to be harvested at 76 days after planting. Patig and Blue Lake
were the last harvested at 106 days after planting. Violeta produced the highest number
of pods per plant (51) and marketable pod per 10m2 plot while Patig produced the lowest
number of pods per plant (37).

Violeta produced the heaviest weight of marketable pods of 14.83. It also gave the
highest yield per plot and per hectare (11.59 kg/10 m2). Violeta significantly produced
the longest pods of 17 cm while Farmers recorded the shortest pod length. Blue Lake
produced significantly the widest pods (1.54 cm) while Farmers had the narrowest pods.

Blue Lake produced the highest return on cash expense (ROCE) 69.76%.



On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

17
Conclusion

Violeta, Blue lake and Taichung were the highest yielders. High ROCE was
obtained from Blue Lake and Taichung.

Recommendation

Blue lake and Taichung are recommended for farmers growing pole snap bean at
Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet condition.

















On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

18
LITERATURE CITED

AQUISION, A. D. 1996. Varietal evaluation of advanced breeding lines of snap beans.
BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 17-18.

AP-APID, N. W. 1991. Optimum spacing requirement for seed production of pole snap
beans. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 17-18

ATOS, C. S. 1997. Growth and yield performance of five bean cultivars. BS Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

BAO-AN, B. M. 2000. Production of promising common (Phaseolus Vulgaris Linn)
Genotype. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

BAUTISTA, U. F. and R. G. MABESA. 1977. Vegetable Production. University of the
Philippines Los Baños College, Los Baños, Laguna. P. 20

CAGAMPANG, I. C. and R. M. LANTICAN. 1977. Field legume production guidelines
in the Philippines. Multicropping source book. University of the Philippines, Los
Baños, Laguna. P. 177.

GONZALES, E. L. 1983. Characterization and yield evaluation of local varieties of snap
bean. BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 7.

INGLES, E. M. 1990. Seed production of two snap bean cultivars as affected by plant
density. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

HAMPTON, J. G. 1987. Seed production agronomy management lecture present during
the seed certificate course at Palmerston North, New Zealand.

KUDAN, S. L. 1999. Performance of snap bean as influenced by seeds from different
plant portion and pod maturity stage. MS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.

REGMI, S. K. 1990. Varietal evaluation of promising lines and path coefficient analysis
in pole snap beans. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Pp. 39-40.

SHRESTA, M. L. 1989. Varietal response of bush snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to
fertilization and inoculation. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 2-3.

SWIADER, J. M. and G. W. WARE. 2002. Producing Vegetable Crops. U.S.A. Interstate
Printers and Publishers Inc. 5th edition. P. 251.

On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

19
VILLAREAL, R. L. 1969. Seeds, Vegetable Training Manual. University of the
Philippines Los Baños College of Agriculture, Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 31-33.












































On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

20
APPENDICES


Appendix Table 1. Days to emergence of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
7
7
8
22
7.34
Patig 8
8
8
24
8.00
Violeta 8
8
8
24
8.00
Taichung 8
8
8
24
8.00
Farmers 8
7
8
23
7.67
Blue Lake
7
8
7
22
7.34
TOTAL 46
46
47
139



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.111
0.055
1.71ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
1.611
0.322



Error
10
1.888
0.188



TOTAL 17
3.610


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.62%




On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

21
Appendix Table 2. Days from planting to flowering of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
75
73
73
227
73.66
Patig 74
72
75
221
73.66
Violeta 72
71
71
214
71.33
Taichung 73
74
74
221
73.66
Farmers 74
74
75
223
74.33
Blue Lake
71
74
74
219
73.00
TOTAL 439
438
442
1,325



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
1.444
0.722
2.34ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
16.277
3.255



Error
10
13.888
1.388



TOTAL 17
31.611


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 1.60%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

22
Appendix Table 3. Number of clusters per plant of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

23 20 19 62
20.66
Patig
22 22 20 64
21.33
Violeta
25 23 22 70
23.33
Taichung
23 21 22 66
22.00
Farmers
20 19 21 60
20.00
Blue
Lake
22 21 22 65
21.66
TOTAL
140 126 126 387


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
9.000
4.500
3.40*
3.33
5.64
Variety
5
19.833
3.966



Error
10
11.666
1.166



TOTAL 17
40.500


* – significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 5.02%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

23
Appendix Table 4. Number of flower per cluster of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
5
5
4
14
4.66
Patig 5
4
6
15
5.00
Violeta 6
5
6
17
5.66
Taichung 5
6
6
17
5.66
Farmers 4
4
5
13
4.33
Blue Lake
4
5
4
13
4.33
TOTAL
29 29 31 89


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.444
0.222
2.30ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
5.611
1.122



Error
10
4.888
0.488



TOTAL 17
10.944


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 14.14%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

24
Appendix Table 5. Number of pod set per cluster of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

3 3 2 8
2.66
Patig
3 2 3 8
2.66
Violeta 4
3
4
11
3.66
Taichung
2 3 3 8
2.66
Farmers
2 2 3 7
2.33
Blue
Lake
3 3 2 8
2.66
TOTAL
17 16 17 50


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.111
0.055
1.60ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
3.111
0.622



Error
10
3.888
0.388



TOTAL 17
7.111


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 22.44%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

25
Appendix Table 6. Number of days to pod setting of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
5
6
5
16
5.33
Patig 6
7
7
20
6.66
Violeta 6
5
6
16
5.33
Taichung 6
7
6
19
6.33
Farmers 6
5
6
16
5.33
Blue Lake
6
7
7
20
6.66
TOTAL 35
37
37
107



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.444
0.222
2.78ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
4.944
0.988



Error
10
3.555
0.355



TOTAL 17
8.944


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 9.84%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

26
Appendix Table 7. Percentage pod set per cluster of six varieties of pole snap beans (%)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
60
60
50
170
56.66
Patig 60
50
50
160
53.33
Violeta 67
60
67
194
64.66
Taichung 40
50
50
140
46.67
Farmers 50
50
60
160
53.33
Blue Lake
75
60
50
185
61.66
TOTAL 352
330
325
1,009



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
62.111
31.055
2.26ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
626.944
125.388



Error
10
553.888
55.388



TOTAL 17
1,242.944


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 13.27%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

27
Appendix Table 8. Percentage abortion (pod fall) of six varieties of pole snap beans (%)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

20 20 20 60
20.00
Patig
20 20 30 70
23.33
Violeta
20 20 20 60
20.00
Taichung
20 30 30 80
26.66
Farmers
20 20 20 60
20.00
Blue
Lake
10 20 20 50
16.66
TOTAL
110 130 140 380


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
77.777
38.888
2.91ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
177.777
35.555



Error
10
122.222
12.222



TOTAL 17
377.777


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 16.56%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

28
Appendix Table 9. Days from planting to first harvest of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
76
77
77
230
76.66
Patig 78
77
78
233
77.66
Violeta 76
76
77
229
76.33
Taichung 76
78
76
230
76.66
Farmers 78
76
77
231
77.00
Blue Lake
78
77
78
232
77.33
TOTAL 462
461
463
1,385



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.333
0.166
1.33ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
4.666
0.933



Error
10
7.000
0.700



TOTAL 17
12.000


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 1.08%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

29
Appendix Table 10. Days from planting to last harvest of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

96 101 97 294
98.00
Patig
102 106 106 314
104.66
Violeta 100
96
100
296
98.66
Taichung
101 106 100 307
102.33
Farmers 102
96
101
299
99.66
Blue
Lake
102 106 106 314
104.66
TOTAL 603
611
610
1,826



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
6.333
3.166
3.28ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
132.666
26.533



Error
10
81.000
8.100



TOTAL 17
220.000


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 2.80%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

30
Appendix Table 11. Number of pods per plant of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

14.08 12.61 17.81 44.50 14.83
Patig
13.36 10.76 13.27 51.48 14.46
Violeta
19.83 15.18 16.47 43.56 17.16
Taichung
12.17 14.33 17.06 43.21 14.52
Farmers
12.02 14.51 16.68 49.53 14.40
Blue Lake
14.32
17.70
17.51
272.67
16.51
TOTAL 85.78
85.09
98.80




ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
19.886
9.943
2.07ns
3.33 5.64
Variety
5
41.977
8.395



Error
10
40.463
4.046



TOTAL 17
102.327


ns – not significant



Coefficient of variation (CV) = 13.42%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

31
Appendix Table 12. Number of marketable pods per treatment of six varieties of pole
snap bean (kg)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

828 720 1,032 2,580 860
Patig 826
605
827
2,268
756
Violeta
1,366 1,091 1,123 3,580
1,193.67
Taichung 827
981
1,182
2,990
996.67
Farmers 742
991
1,116
2,849
949.67
Blue
Lake
977 1,150 1,110 3,237 1,079
TOTAL 5,576
5,538
6,390
17,504



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
77219.111 38609.555
3.54*
3.33
5.64
Variety
5
3622.444
72446.088



Error
10
204750.888 20475.088



TOTAL 17
644200.444


* – significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 14.71%





On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

32
Appendix Table 13. Number of non-marketable pods per treatment of six varieties of pole
snap beans (kg)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

299 289 393 981 327
Patig
233 256 235 742
241.33
Violeta
221 124 195 540 180
Taichung
147 229 183 559
186.33
Farmers
220 170 219 609 203
Blue
Lake
169 266 291 726 242
TOTAL
1289 1334 1516 4157


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
4815.444
2407.722



Variety
5
44451.611
8890.322
4.35*
3.33 5.64
Error
10
20453.888
2045.388



TOTAL 17
69720.944


* - significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 19.66%





On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

33
Appendix Table 14. Weight of marketable pods per treatment of six varieties of pole snap
beans (kg/10m2)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
6.75
6.50
6.50
19.75
6.58
Patig 6.75
4.75
6.50
18.00
6.00
Violeta
13.25 9.50 9.75 32.50 10.83
Taichung 6.25
7.00
7.75
21.00
7.00
Farmers 4.75
7.00
6.75
18.50
6.167
Blue Lake
7.25
8.00
8.80
24.05
8.02
TOTAL 45.00
42.75
46.05
133.80



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.947
0.473



Variety
5
49.408
9.881
6.32**
3.33
5.64
Error
10
15.629
1.562



TOTAL 17
65.985


** - highly significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 16.81%





On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

34
Appendix Table 15. Weight of non-marketable pods per treatment of six varieties of pole
snap beans (kg/10m2)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

0.95 1.25 1.03 3.23 1.07
Patig
1.08 1.18 0.93 3.19 1.06
Violeta
0.98 0.45 0.85 2.28 0.76
Taichung
0.62 1.00 0.78 2.40 0.80
Farmers
0.95 0.92 0.74 2.61 0.87
Blue
Lake
0.75 1.20 1.33 3.28 1.09
TOTAL 5.33
6.00
5.66
16.99



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.037
0.018



Variety
5
0.346
0.068
1.43ns 3.33
5.64
Error
10
0.478
0.047



TOTAL 17
0.859


ns – not signficant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 23.18%





On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

35
Appendix Table 16. Total yield per plot of six varieties of pole snap beans (kg/10m2)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
7.70
7.75
7.53
22.98
7.66
Patig 7.83
5.93
7.43
21.19
7.06
Violeta
14.23 9.95 10.6 34.78 11.59
Taichung 6.87
8.00
8.53
23.40
7.80
Farmers 5.70
7.92
7.49
21.11
7.04
Blue
Lake
8.00 9.20 10.13 27.33 9.11
TOTAL 50.33
48.75
51.71
150.79



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.731
0.365



Variety
5
45.753
9.150
4.96*
3.33
5.64
Error
10
18.432
1.843



TOTAL 17
64.917


* - significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 16.20%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

36
Appendix Table 17. Total yield per hectare of six varieties of pole snap beans (t/ha)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
7.70
7.75
7.53
22.98
7.66
Patig 7.83
5.93
7.43
21.19
7.06
Violeta
14.23 9.95 10.6 34.78 11.59
Taichung 6.87
8.00
8.53
23.40
7.80
Farmers 5.70
7.92
7.49
21.11
7.04
Blue
Lake
8.00 9.20 10.13 27.33 9.11
TOTAL 50.33
48.75
51.71
150.79



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.731
0.365



Variety
5
45.753
9.150
4.96*
3.33
5.64
Error
10
18.432
1.843



TOTAL 17
64.917


* - significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 16.20%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

37
Appendix Table 18. Length of pod at harvest of six varieties of pole snap beans (cm)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

14.04 14.07 14.06 42.17 14.05
Patig
15.76 15.78 15.80 47.34 15.78
Violeta
17.60 17.59 17.61 52.80 17.60
Taichung
15.70 15.71 15.70 47.11 15.70
Farmers
13.82 13.81 13.83 41.46 13.82
Blue
Lake
14.80 14.10 14.90 43.80 14.60
TOTAL 91.72
91.06
91.90
274.68



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.065
0.032



Variety
5
29.699
5.939
187.65**
3.33
5.64
Error
10
0.316
0.031



TOTAL 17
30.081


** - highly significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 1.16%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

38
Appendix Table 19. Width of pod at harvest of six varieties of pole snap beans (cm)

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno

1.2 1.2 1.10 3.5 1.16
Patig
1.5 1.4 1.4 4.3 1.43
Violeta
1.14 1.15 1.16 3.45 1.15
Taichung
1.18 1.16 1.18 3.52 1.17
Farmers 1.10
1.2
1.1
3.4
1.13
Blue
Lake
1.54 1.52 1.56 4.62 1.54
TOTAL
7.67 7.63 7.5 22.79


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.002
0.001



Variety
5
0.457
0.091
48.55**
3.33
5.64
Error
10
0.018
0.001



TOTAL 17
0.479


** - highly significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 3.42%






On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

39
Appendix Table 20. Number of harvest per treatment of six varieties of pole snap beans

VARIETY BLOCK
I II III
TOTAL
MEAN
Alno
5
6
5
16
5.33
Patig 6
5
5
16
5.33
Violeta 6
5
5
16
5.33
Taichung 6
5
6
17
5.67
Farmers 5
5
6
16
5.33
Blue Lake
6
5
5
16
5.33
TOTAL
34 31 32 97


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
TABULAR F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.777
0.388



Variety
5
0.277
0.055
1.17ns
3.33 5.64
Error
10
3.222
0.322



TOTAL 17
4.277


ns – not significant


Coefficient of variation (CV) = 10.53%

On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties
at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition / Remee T. Mulchino. 2007

Document Outline

  • On-farm Evaluation of Potential Pole Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Varieties at Gusaran, Kabayan, Benguet Condition
    • BIBLIOGRAPHY
    • ABSTRACT
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • INTRODUCTION
    • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
    • LITERATURE CITED
    • APPENDICES