SearchAuthorsKeywordsSubjectsTitlesYear

BIBLIOGRAPHY GAYAWET, ROLLY C. ...

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GAYAWET, ROLLY C. APRIL 2009. Yield Evaluation and Farmer
Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet
Co.ndition. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Adviser: Esther Josephine D. Sagalla, MSc.
ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to identify the best entry based on yield and resistance
to pest, determine the profitability of growing the different entries at Sapid, Mankayan,
and determine the entries selected by farmers at Sapid, Mankayan.

Based on the results, entry SG98-18-01 was the best entry due to its high yield
and resistance to pest. Entries PSBSP23, Peke Negro, Macupag, Hawai, Bengueta and
Felipe may also be included due to their comparably high yields and resistance to beetle
and scab.

SG98-18-01, Macupag, Bengueta and Felipe had above 400% ROCE and may
therefore be profitably grown at Sapid, Mankayan.

SG98-18-01, Macupag, and Bengueta were selected by ten farmers due to their
high yields whereas Haponita and Hawai were selected due to the purple and red flesh
color of the entries.
TABLE OF CONTENTS












Page

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

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
MATERIALS AND METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Percent Plant Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

Plant Vigor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

Reaction to Incidence of Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13

Reaction to Scab Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Number
of
Marketable
and
Non-Marketable Storage Roots . . . . . . .
14

Weight of Marketable and Non-Marketable Storage Root . . . . . . . . .
16

Total Yield Per Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18

Computed Yield (Tons/Hectare) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19

Farmer’s Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16

Dry Matter Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20

Sugar Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21

Sensory Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21

Farmer’s Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
ii


Return on Cash Expense (ROCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . .
26

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27

Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30

iii

INTRODUCTION


Sweetpotato
(Ipomoea batatas) is traditionally used as a staple crop by many
mountain tribes in the Northern Philippines (NPRCRTC, 1991). It is a regular part of the
people’s diet especially in areas where rice supply is low.

Every part of the sweetpotato plant is consumed. The storage roots are eaten as
food; the tender leaves are eaten as vegetables and used as planting materials or feeds
(Rasco and Amante, 1994). The roots may also be processed into candies, wine and
cookies.

Sweetpotato can be planted all year round and may be used as cover crop to
minimize soil erosion. It is also a low input crop with stable yield (Gonzales, 1983)
giving higher profit to farmers.

Continuous evaluation of sweetpotato varieties should therefore be done to exploit
the benefits of this crop. Evaluation of different varieties of sweetpotato may lead to
improvement of the yield and eating quality of the crop.

Farmers in Mankayan also depend on native cultivars which are generally low
yielders and late maturing. Thus, through the results of this study, a suitable high
yielding variety may be introduced to the farmers for higher profit.

The study was conducted to:

1. identify the best entry based on yield and resistance to pest;

2. determine the profitability of growing the different entries at Sapid, Mankayan;
and

3. determine the entries selected by farmers at Sapid, Mankayan.


Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

2
The study was conducted at Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet from October 2007 to
March 2008.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Sweetpotato Plant

The sweetpotato plant can be divided into three basic parts, each has its specific
function. The above ground canopy absorbs light energy and converts it to manageable
chemical form (carbon compound). The root absorbs water and nutrients and act as an
anchor for plant. It also stores excess energy that are not needed for maintenance in the
form of carbohydrates in large storage roots (Woolfe, 1992).

Knott and Deanon (1967) reported that early varieties can be harvested in 70 to 90
days and late maturing are ready to harvest at about 120 days. It usually takes longer for
a crop to mature in wet season than in dry season.

Climatic Requirement for Sweetpotato

Sajjapongse (1982) as cited by Bang-as (2004), revealed that a temperature of
24oC or more with good sunshine and warm night is the optimum condition for proper
growth and development of sweetpotato. Growth is restricted by cool weather and the
temperature below 10oC is critical for growth. Shading of the crop will result in the
reduction of yield. The crop tolerates drought to some extent but growth will be very
much reduced. However, supplementary irrigation helps better growth and water supply
of about 112 to 15 cm/ha of water is most useful.

Sweetpotato can tolerate drought better than flooding (Ghost et al., 1988).
However, the magnitude of yield reduction under both stresses varies from culture to
cultivar. Under moisture stress, leaf water potential is decreased even though stomata
does not close completely.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

4
Varietal Performance

Farmers’ varietal preferences vary depending on their regional or local
preferences. Most farmers prefer local varieties in areas planted after rice or as rotation
crop to vegetables while other prefer sweetpotato with good herbage. Sensory evaluation
is another factor that influences the preferences or a consumer towards a certain variety
(Palomar, 1988).

A study conducted by the Northern Philippine Root Crops Research and Training
Center (1990) reported introduced clones have storage roots with smooth texture and
shape, sweet to a very sweet flavor, and most to slightly dry and less fibrous texture.

Varietal Evaluation

The testing of varieties is much greater important than testing for purity and
germination since growers suffer losses from impurity or from low germinations. It is
essential to the grower to find the most suited testing varieties. Many of the agricultural
experimental stations conduct variety and strain test of some crops and recommend
varieties in order to determine whether or not they fit their particular conditions. A
variety or strain may vary satisfactory in some conditions (Thompson and Kelly, 1957).

Cagampang and Lantian (1977) suggested that the choice of variety is important.
They further observed that the use of improved variety minimized problems associated
with water and fertilizer management. On the other hand, growing the wrong variety
may mean crop failure of disease infection and adverse climatic condition.

Janick (1972) cited that temperature, moisture and light as well as weather factors
must be considered in the physical environment of the plants. These factors determine
when and what crops were grown in a certain climatic condition. Moreover,
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

5
environmental variability over the years is substantial with the wide diversity of
environmental and limited geographical areas.

In addition, Gonzales (1983) reported that most farmers prefer varieties, which
are high yielding, early maturing and have good eating quality. Others choose a variety
that have vigorous vegetative parts and are favored for animal feeds, cover crops or
which serves as control against soil erosion.

Sunil (1990) stated that varietal evaluation is a process in crop breeding program
which provide comparison or promising lines developed by breeders. It is only through
varietal evaluation that a breeder sees the better performance of the developed lines in
terms of yielding quality, adaptability, stress tolerance, insect pest and diseases
resistance.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

6
MATERIALS AND METHODS


A total area of 216 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into three blocks
(Fig. 1). Each block consist of eleven plots measuring 1 x 6 m each. Twenty cutting per
replication per variety was sown in each plot. The different varieties were taken from the
Northern Philippine Root Crop Research and Training Center (NPRCRTC).

The varieties were laid out using Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
and replicated three times.

The following are the varieties to be evaluated:


Code

Variety


Source

V1
PSBSP22
NPRCRTC

V2


Haponita


NPRCRTC

V3
Pekenegro
NPRCRTC

V4 SG98-18-01
NPRCRTC

V5 JK27
NPRCRTC

V6 Macupag
NPRCRTC

V7 Hawai
NPRCRTC

V8 Bengueta
NPRCRTC

V9 Tres
Flores
NPRCRTC

V10

Beniasuma
NPRCRTC

V11

Felipe (Local Check)
Mankayan


Cultural practices such as fertilizer application, irrigation and weeding were
uniformly employed in all treatments.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

7


























Figure 1. Overview of the production site
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

8
Data Gathered

1. Percent plant survival. The number of plants that survived was counted at 30
days after planting and computed using the following formula:
No.
of
Plants
Survived


% Plant Survival = x 100
Total
No.
of
Plants
Planted


2. Plant vigor. This was taken at 45, 60, 75 and 90 days after planting (DAP)
using the rating scale (Gonzales et al., 2004).

Scale


Description



Reaction
5

Plants were strong robust stems and leaves; light

dark
green
in
color

Highly
vigorous

4
Plants were moderately strong with robust stem


and leaves; were light green in color

Vigorous

3

Better than less vigorous



Moderately vigorous

2
Plants were weak with few thin stems and

leaves;
pale


Less
vigorous

1
Plants were weak with few stem and leaves;

very
pale


Poor
vigor



3. Insect infection (beetle/leaf folder). This was recorded by degree of insect
damage on the crop at 60, 75 and 90 days after planting. This indicate that the variety is
resistant to insect pest using the following scale (Rasco, 1996):

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

9
Rating


Description



Reaction
1
No symptoms




Very resistant

3
Scattered spot covering 10-20% leaf surface
affected Resistant

5
Scattered spots covering 21-30$ leaf surface
Moderately resistant

7
Scattered to heavy spotting covering 31-50%


at leaf surface affected


Moderately susceptible

9
Heavy spotting covering more than 50% leaf

surface
defoliation
occurring
Susceptible



4. Disease infection (scab). Leaf scab infection of ten sample plants from each
variety at random was rated at 60, 75 and 90 days after planting using the following scale
(Rasco, 1996):

Rating


Description



Reaction
1
Lesions on leaves and stems coalesced severe


leaf deformation and stem twisting
Susceptible

2
Several lesion on leaves and stem deformation Moderately susceptible

3
Several lesions on leaves and stems.

No
stem
deformation
Moderately
resistant

4
Few lesions on leaves and stems


Resistant

5
No symptoms




Very resistant




5. Number and weight of marketable roots (kg) per plot. All storage roots with a
diameter of three centimeter and above are free from injuries are counted and weighed at
harvest.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

10

6. Number and weight of non-marketable roots (kg) per plot. Storage roots with
defect and damage by insect pest or disease and below 3 cm in diameter are counted and
weighed at harvest.

7. Total yield per plot (kg). Storage roots from each treatment per replication are
weighed at harvest.

8. Farmer’s selection. At harvest, ten farmers were invited to select the variety of
their choice. The characteristics of the varieties was noted. Farmers were asked the
reasons for selecting a certain variety (Soliba et al., 2004).

9. Dry matter content. This was taken by weighing at least 20 grams of storage
roots and oven dried. The dry matter content was computed as:


% DMC = 100% - % Moisture Content

where:






Fresh Weight – Oven Dry Weight




% DMC = x 100







Fresh Weight

10. Sugar content. This was taken by extracting the juice from the roots using the
digital refractometer.

11. Sensory evaluation. Storage root from different varieties were boiled and
evaluation by farmers and consumer according to appearance, sweetness, fibrousness,
flesh color, textural moistness and general acceptability. The following are basis in
determining the eating quality per variety (Mabesa, 1986):


Appearance: 5 = like a lot; 4 = like a little; 3 = neither like or dislike;



2 = dislike a little, 1 = dislike a lot



Sweetness: 4 = sweet; 3 = moderately sweet; 2 = slightly sweet; 1 = bland



Fibrousness: 4 = very fibrous; 3 = fibrous; 2 = slightly fibrous;

1
=
not
fibrous

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

11


Flesh color: 3 = deeply colored; 2 = moderately colored; 1 = pale colored



Textural moistness: 7 = very dry; 6 = moderately dry; 5 = slightly dry;



4 = neither dry nor wet; 3 = slightly wet




2 = moderately wet; 1 = very wet



12. Computed yield (t/ha). This was computed yield per hectare with the
formula:


Computed
Yield
(t/ha) = Total Yield/Plot x 0.92592


13. Return on cash expense (ROCE). This was composed using the following
formula:





Net Income




ROCE = x 100

Total
Cost
of
Production

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Percent Plant Survival


All of the eleven sweet potato entries had 100% plant survival at 30 days after
planting.

Plant Vigor

Significant differences are observed on the plant vigor of different sweetpotato
entries at 45, 60, 75 and 90 days after planting (Table 1). Most of the sweetpotato entries
(e.g. PSBSP22, Hawai, Bengueta, etc.) showed increased vigor from 45 to 90 days after
planting while Haponita and Felipe had decreased vigor. The decrease in vigor of these
entries may be attributed to high incidence of insects (beetle) at 75 to 90 days after
planting (Table 2).

Table 1. Plant vigor of sweetpotato entries at 45, 60, 75 and 90 days after planting

PLANT VIGOR
ENTRY
45 60 75 90
PSBSP22
4.0b
4.0b
5.0a
5.0a
Haponita
4.0b
4.0b
3.0b
3.0b
Pekenegro
3.0c
3.0c
3.0b
3.0b
SG98-18-01
4.0b
4.0b
4.0ab
4.0ab
JK27
4.0b
4.0b
4.0ab
4.0ab
Macupag
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Hawai
4.0b
4.0b
5.0a
5.0a
Bengueta
4.0b
4.0b
5.0a
5.0a
Tres Flores
3.0c
3.0c
5.0a
5.0a
Beniazuma
4.0b
4.0b
5.0a
5.0a
Felipe
4.0b
4.0b
3.0b
3.0b
Rating Scale: 1 – Poor vigor; 2 – Less vigorous; 3 – Moderately vigorous; 4 – Vigorous;
5 – Highly vigorous
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

13
PSBSP 22 and Macupag were highly vigorous while most of the entries were
vigorous to moderately vigorous. High plant vigor might be an indication of wide
canopy and pest resistance.


Reaction to Incidence of Beetle

Most of the sweetpotato entries (e.g. PSBSP22, Pekenegro, JK 27, etc.)
maintained resistant to moderately resistant ratings against beetles from 60 to 90 days
after planting (Table 2). Haponita, Hawai and Felipe, on the other hand, showed
decreasing resistance against beetle.

Table 2. Reaction to beetle incidence of sweetpotato entries at 60, 75 and 90 days after
planting


BEETLE INCIDENCE
ENTRY
60 75 90
PSBSP22
3.0
3.0b
3.0b
Haponita
4.0
6.0a
6.0a
Pekenegro
4.0
4.0b
4.0b
SG98-18-01
4.0
4.0b
4.0ab
JK27
3.0
3.0b
3.0b
Macupag
3.0
4.0b
3.0b
Hawai
3.0
4.0b
4.0b
Bengueta
4.0
3.0b
3.0b
Tres Flores
4.0
4.0b
4.0ab
Beniazuma
3.0
3.0b
3.0b
Felipe
4.0
5.0ab
5.0ab
CV (%)
28.26
30.21
30.54
Rating Scale: 1 – Very resistant; 3 – Resistant; 5 – Moderately Resistant; 7 – Moderately
Susceptible; 9 - Susceptible

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

14
Haponita and Felipe showed moderate resistance against beetle while the rest of
the varieties were resistant. Resistance to insects may be related to the genetic
constitution of the varieties (Walter, 1987).

Reaction to Scab Infection

Table 3 shows significant differences on the resistance of the eleven sweetpotato
entries to leaf scab at 60, 75 and 90 days after planting. All the entries except Felipe
consistently maintained resistant to very resistant ratings against scab from 60 to 90 DAP.
Felipe, which is a farmer’s variety was susceptible to scab starting at 75 days after
planting.
Resistance to leaf scab may be due to the presence of physical barriers in the
entry such as thickness of the cuticle, number of stomates and lenticels in the petioles and
stem that might be absent in entry Felipe (Rasco and Amante, 2000).

Number of Marketable and Non-Marketable Storage Roots

The average number of marketable and non-marketable storage roots per plot are
shown in Table 4. SG98-18-01 significantly produced the highest number of marketable
and non-marketable roots compared to Felipe (check). This result implies that SG98-18-
01 may be more resistant to scab, thereby producing more roots.

Felipe also had more marketable roots than the other entries such Haponita
despite being susceptible to scab.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

15
Table 3. Reaction to scab infection of 11 sweetpotato entries at 60, 75 and 90 days after
planting


SCAB INFECTION
ENTRY
60 75 90
PSBSP22
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Haponita
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Pekenegro
4.0bc
4.0b
4.0bc
SG98-18-01
4.0bc
4.0b
4.0bc
JK27
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Macupag
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Hawai
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Bengueta
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Tres Flores
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Beniazuma
5.0a
5.0a
5.0a
Felipe
4.0bc
1.0c
1.0c
CV (%)
7.46
7.69
12.32

Rating Scale: 1 – Susceptible; 2 – Moderately Susceptible; 3 – Moderately Resistant;

4 – Resistant; 5 – Very Resistant



Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

16
Table 4. Number of marketable and non-marketable storage roots of 11 sweetpotato
entries




NUMBER OF STORAGE ROOTS
ENTRY


MARKETABLE
NON-MARKETABLE
(per 6 m2)
(per 6 m2)
PSBSP22
44bc
16ab
Haponita
29c
9bc
Pekenegro
35bc
6bc
SG98-18-01
67a
23a
JK27
44bc
23a
Macupag
47b
11bc
Hawai
47b
7bc
Bengueta
40bc
2c
Tres Flores
31bc
6bc
Beniazuma
32bc
4c
Felipe
40bc
3c
CV (%)
20.60
27.49

Weight of Marketable and Non-Marketable Storage Root

The weight of marketable and non-marketable storage roots of the different
entries are presented in Table 5 (Fig. 2). SG98-18-01 produced the highest weight of
marketable storage roots but comparable with the marketable roots of most of the entries
including Felipe. This result may imply that the storage root of the other entries
including Felipe may be larger than the roots of SG98-18-01

Low weight of Haponita, Tres Flores and Beniazuma was due to the low number
of marketable storage roots (Table 5).

No significant differences are observed in the weight of non-marketable roots of
the different entries.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

17
(a)Haponita (b) Macupag (c) SG98-18-01










(d) Hawaii (e) Bengueta (f) PSPSP22











(g) Felipe (h) Tres Flores (i) JK27











(h) Pekenegro (i) Beniazuma

Figure 2. Marketable and non-marketable yield of the different entries
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

18
Table 5. Weight of marketable and non-marketable storage roots of 11 sweetpotato
entries




WEIGHT OF STORAGE ROOTS



ENTRY
MARKETABLE
NON-MARKETABLE
(kg/6 m2)
(kg/6 m2)
PSBSP22
13.45abc
0.88
Haponita
3.35c
0.37
Pekenegro
12.70abc
0.67
SG98-18-01
15.80a
0.95
JK27
9.42
1.38
Macupag
15.35a
0.67
Hawai
14.42ab
0.33
Bengueta
15.07a
0.97
Tres Flores
4.55de
0.97
Beniazuma
8.33cde
0.38
Felipe
15.07a
0.50
CV (%)
25.46
27.49


Total Yield Per Plot

The total yield per plot of the eleven sweetpotato entries ranged from 4.12 kg to
16.75 kg per plot (Table 6). SG98-18-01 significantly produced the highest total yield
but comparable with the yields of most of the entries except Haponita, JK 27, Tres Flores
and Beniazuma. Haponita produced the lowest yield.

According to Catipon (1986) there is always a variation on the yield components
among varieties evaluated. This could be due to the varying yield potential of the entries
and their interaction with the environment.

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

19
Table 6. Total and computed yield of 11 sweetpotato entries

TOTAL YIELD
COMPUTED YIELD
ENTRY
(kg/6m2)
(tons/ha)
PSBSP22
14.33a
23.89ab
Haponita
4.12d
6.86d
Pekenegro
13.37abc
22.28bc
SG98-18-01 16.75a
27.91a
JK27
10.80bc
18.00bc
Macupag
16.02ab
22.69ab
Hawai
14.75ab
24.58ab
Bengueta
16.03ab
26.72ab
Tres Flores
4.92d
8.19d
Beniazuma
8.72cd
14.52cd
Felipe
15.52ab
25.94ab
CV (%)
24.28
24.28

Computed Yield (Tons/Hectare)

The computed yield per hectare of the eleven sweetpotato entries evaluated
ranged from 6.86 tons to 27.91 tons/ha (Table 6). SG98-18-01 significantly produced the
highest yield but comparable with the other entries including farmer’s variety, Felipe.
This result may indicate that these entries may be suitably grown in the locality.

This observation confirms the findings of Cagampang (1977) that growing the
wrong variety may mean crop failure and loss of profit for farmers.

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

20
Dry Matter Content


Table 7 shows the significant differences in the root dry matter of the different
sweetpotato entries. Highest dry matter content was obtained from Tres Flores and the
lowest was from Bengueta, Pekenegro and Macupag.
The average dry matter content of sweetpotatoes is approximately 30% but varies
widely depending on cultivars, location, climate, day length and soil type (AVRDC,
1996).

Table 7. Dry matter and sugar content of the storage roots of 11 sweetpotato entries




DRY MATTER CONTENT
SUGAR CONTENT
ENTRY
(%)
(oBrix)
PSBSP22
30de
8.2bc
Haponita
32bc
9.5a
Pekenegro
28f
7.2cd
SG98-18-01
30cd
6.7d
JK27
31ef
6.6d
Macupag
28f
6.4d
Hawai
29ef
7.0cd
Bengueta
28f
6.3d
Tres Flores
36a
9.7a
Beniazuma
34
9.0ab
Felipe
32bc
8.5ab
CV (%)
2.59
9.30

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

21
Sugar Content

The sugar content of the sweetpotato roots is presented in Table 7. Tres Flores
had the highest root sugar content but comparable with the sugar contents of entries
Haponita, Beniazuma and Felipe. Bengueta had the lowest sugar content of roots.

The high and low sugar content of sweetpotato entries might be due to the genetic
constitution of each entry (Walter, 1987). Entries with low sugar content might be used
for fry processing due to less browning.

Sensory Evaluation
Appearance. The boiled sweetpotato roots of the different entries were liked a
little by the panelists. Entry Pekenegro which had purple flesh was liked a lot.

Sweetness. Among the 11 entries, Tres, Flores was sweet while the rest were
moderately sweet. Entry Tres Flores had the highest sugar content (9.7oBrix) accounting
for its sweetness.
Fibrousness. The boiled roots of entries PSBSP22, Haponita, SG98-18-01, Hawai
and Felipe were slightly fibrous while Pekenegro, JK27, Macupag, Bengueta, Tres Flores
and Beniazuma were fibrous. Entries that contain high fiber may help to lower the risk of
constipation, colon and rectal cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity (Lordel, 2008).
Flesh
color. Boiled roots of Haponita had purple flesh, Makupag had red flesh,
JK27, Tres Flores and Beniazuma had yellow flesh. The other entries had light violet
flesh (Pekenegro), light pink flesh (SG98-18-01 and Bengueta), light yellow flesh
(Hawai) and white flesh (PSBSP22 and Felipe).

Textural moistness. All of the boiled sweetpotato entries were slightly dry except
Tres Flores which was neither dry nor wet.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

22
General
acceptability. Among the different sweetpotato entries evaluated,
Haponita and Tres Flores were liked a lot while the rest of the entries were liked a little.
The acceptability of Haponita and Tres Flores may be attributed to their high sugar
contents (9.5oBrix and 9.7 oBrix, respectively).

Farmer’s Selection


At harvest, ten farmers were invited to select the entry of their choice (Table 8).
Most of the farmers selected SG98-18-01, Macupag and Bengueta due to their high yield
and attractive roots (Fig. 3). Entries Haponita and Hawai were also selected for their
oblong roots and attractive root flesh color.

Table 8. Farmer’s selection



ENTRY
NUMBER OF FARMERS
REASON
(n = 10)
Haponita
10
Attracting color (violet flesh) and


oblong shape



Hawai
8
Long oblong shape and attractive


color (Red)



Bengueta
9
High yield and early maturity



Macupag
8
High yield, good skin texture and


attractive color (Red)



SG98-18-01
10
High yield, attractive color (Pink)






Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

23















Figure 3. Farmers selecting sweetpotato entries
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

24

Entries SG98-18-01, Macupag and Bengueta may give higher profit to farmers
due to their high yield. Entries Haponita and Hawai, on the other hand, might be good
for coloring of food and drinks.

Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)

The return on cash expense of the eleven sweetpotato entries ranged from 34 to
427% (Table 9). SG98-18-01 having the highest total yield had the highest ROCE of
427% while Haponita had the lowest ROCE of 34%. The farmer’s variety, Felipe, entries
Macupag and Bengueta also had high ROCE. The high percentage of ROCE in these
entries might be due to the presence of large tubers which contributed to the increased
weight of the entries.

The low return on cash expense (ROCE) might be due to the low number and
weight of storage roots of Haponita.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

25
Table 9. Return on cash expense of 11 sweetpotato entries








GROSS
TOTAL
NET


YIELD
SALE
EXPENSES
INCOME
ROCE
ENTRY
(kg/18m2)
(Php)
(Php)
(Php)
(%)

PSBSP22
40.35
605.25
135.00
470.75
349
Haponita
11.25
168.75
135.00
33.75
34
Pekenegro
38.10
571.50
135.00
436.50
323
SG98-18-01
47.40
711.00
135.00
576.00
427
JK27
28.25
423.75
135.00
288.00
213
Macupag
46.05
690.75
135.00
555.75
417
Hawai
43.25
498.75
135.00
363.75
269
Bengueta
45.20
678.00
135.00
543.00
402
Tres Flores
13.65
204.75
135.00
69.75
52
Beniazuma
25.00
375.00
135.00
240.00
178
Felipe
45.20
678.00
135.00
543.00
402
Note: Php 15.00 is the selling price per 1 kg of storage root. Total expenses include
planting materials, fertilizer, land preparation, weeding, harvesting and irrigation
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

26

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION


Summary

The study was conducted to identify the best entry based on yield and resistance
to pest, determine the profitability of growing the different entries at Sapid, Mankayan,
and determine the entries selected by farmers at Sapid, Mankayan.

All eleven sweetpotato entries evaluated had 100% survival rate and had
significant differences in most data gathered except non-marketable storage roots.

It was observed that most of the entries were vigorous to highly vigorous and
were resistant to beetle and scab. Entries Haponita and Felipe were however moderately
resistant to beetle and scab.

Entry SG98-18-01 had the highest number and weight of marketable and non-
marketable storage roots while Haponita had the lowest.

Ten farmers selected SG98-18-01 due to its high yield and Haponita due to its
attractive color. Hawai, Bengueta and Macupag were also selected by 8 to 9 farmers due
to their shape, high yield and root color.

The root dry matter content of the eleven entries ranged from 28 to 32%. Tres
Flores had the highest root dry matter while Pekenegro, Macupag and Bengueta had the
lowest.

In terms of sugar content of roots, Bengueta had the lowest but comparable with
Macupag, JK27 and SG98-18-01.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

27

The boiled roots of Haponita and Tres Flores were liked a lot while the rest were
liked.

In terms of ROCE, SG9818-01 gained the highest profit.

Conclusion

Based on the results, SG98-18-01 was the best entry due to its high yield and
resistance to pest. PSBSP22, Peke Negro, Macupag, Hawai, Bengueta and Felipe may
also be included due to their comparable yields and resistant to very resistant ratings
against beetle and scab.

All the entries had above 100% ROCE except Haponita and Tres Flores due to
their low yield. SG98-18-01, Macupag, Bengueta, and Felipe had above 400% ROCE.
These entries are therefore profitably grown at Sapid, Mankayan.

SG98-18-01, Macupag, and Bengueta were selected by ten farmers due to their
high yields whereas Haponita and Hawai were selected due to the purple and red flesh
color of the entries.

Recommendation

SG98-18-01, Macupag, Bengueta and Felipe could be grown at Sapid, Mankayan
due to their high yield, resistance to disease, and high ROCE. Moreover, these entries
were selected by the farmers.

Haponita and Hawai are recommended for processing due to their attractive flesh
color and high dry matter content.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

28

LITERATURE CITED

AVRDC. 1996. Sweetpotato Processing. Laguna:UPLB. P. 27.

BANG-AS, R. 2004. Evaluation of promising sweetpotato genotypes for growth
tolerance under post-rice condition. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 5.

CAGAMPANG, I. C. and R. M. LANTICAN. 1977. Field Legume Production in the
Philippines. Laguna: UPLB. P. 177.

CATIPON, H. 1986. Varietal Composition in Sweetpotato. Laguna:UPLB. P. 50.

GHOST, et al. 1988. Producing Vegetable Crops. Third Edition. New York: McGraw
Hill Book Co., Inc. Pp. 540-541.

GONZALES, I. C. 1983. Sweetpotato in the Highlands. Research Extension of
Newsletter. Benguet: HARRDEC 1(1):6.

JANICK, J. 1972. Horticulture Science. 2nd ed. San Francisco: w. P. Freeman. Pp.
491, 181.

KNOTT, J. B. and DEANON. 1967. Vegetable production in Southeast Asia. Laguna:
UPLB. Pp. 311-313.

LORDEL, K. 2008. Sweet Potato Nature’s Health Food. Retrieved March 20, 2008
from http://www.ncsweetpotatoes.com.

MABESA, L. 1986. Sensory Evaluation of Foods: Principle and Method. Laguna:
UPLB. Pp. 42-47.

NPRCRTC. 1990. Final Report. Benguet: NPRCRTC. Pp. 43-45.

PALOMAR, M. K. 1988. Sweetpotato Industry Situation in Philippines. Laguna:UPLB.
P. 1.

RASCO, B. T. JR. and V. D. AMANTE. 1994. Sweetpotato Variety Evaluation.
Southeast Asian Program for Potato Research Development. 1:42-43.

SOLIBA, R. 2004. Evaluation and selection of sweetpotato varieties for herbage and
storage root yield in Bontoc, Mountain Province. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 9.

SUNIL, K. R. 1990. Varietal evaluation on promising line and path coefficient analysis
in pole snap beans. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
P. 81.

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

29
THOMPSON, J. H. and C. KELLY. 1957. Vegetable Crops. 5th ed. New York:
McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. Pp. 78-79.

WALTER, J. 1987. Biometrical Techniques in Plant Breeding. India: Kalyari Pub. Pp.
27, 52.

WOOLFE, J. A. 1992. Sweetpotato: An Untopped Food Source. Cabridge: University
press. P. 643.
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

30

APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1. Plant vigor at 45 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
4.0
12
V2
4.0
12
V3
3.3
10
V4
4.0
12
V5
4.0
12
V6
4.7
14
V7
4.0
12
V8
4.0
12
V9
3.3
10
V10
3.7
11
V11
4.0
12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.182
0.091
3.27*
2.35 3.3
Treatment
10
4.061
0.406
Error
20
2.485
0.124
TOTAL 32
6.485




* - Significant

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

31
Appendix Table 2. Plant vigor at 60 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
4.0
12
V2
4.0
12
V3
3.3
10
V4
4.0
12
V5
4.0
12
V6
4.7
14
V7
4.0
12
V8
4.0
12
V9
3.3
10
V10
3.7
11
V11
4.0
12


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.182
0.091
3.26*
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
4.061
0.406
Error
20
2.485
0.124
TOTAL
32 6.727
*
-
Significant
CV
(%)
=
9.02
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

32
Appendix Table 3. Plant vigor at 75 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
5.0
15
V2
3.3
10
V3
3.3
10
V4
3.7
11
V5
4.3
13
V6
5.0
15
V7
4.3
13
V8
4.7
14
V9
4.7
14
V10
4.3
13
V11
3.0
9


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.152
0.576
2.93*
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
14.909
1.491
Error
20
10.182
0.509
TOTAL 32
26.242




* - Significant






CV (%) = 17.19

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

33
Appendix Table 4. Plant vigor at 90 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
5.0
15
V2
3.3
10
V3
3.3
10
V4
3.7
11
V5
4.3
13
V6
5.0
15
V7
4.3
13
V8
4.7
14
V9
4.7
14
V10
5.0
15
V11
3.0
9


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.788
0.394
3.4*
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
16.848
1.685
Error
20
9.879
0.494
TOTAL 32
27.515




* - Significant






CV (%) = 16.69

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

34
Appendix Table 5. Insect incidence at 60 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
3.0
9
V2
3.7
11
V3
4.3
13
V4
3.7
11
V5
3.0
9
V6
3.0
9
V7
3.0
9
V8
3.7
11
V9
3.7
11
V10
3.0
9
V11
4.3
13


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
4.606
2.303
0.85ns
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
8.242
0.824
Error
20
19.394
0.970
TOTAL 32
32.242




* - Significant






CV (%) = 28.26

Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

35
Appendix Table 6. Insect incidence at 75 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
3.0
9
V2
6.3
19
V3
3.7
11
V4
4.3
13
V5
3.0
9
V6
3.0
9
V7
3.7
11
V8
3.0
9
V9
3.7
11
V10
3.0
9
V11
5.0
15


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01

Replication
2
3.152
1.576
2.61
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
34.182
3.418
Error
20
26.182
1.309
TOTAL 32
63.515













CV(%) = 30.21
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

36
Appendix Table 7. Insect incidence at 75 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
3.0
9
V2
6.3
19
V3
3.7
11
V4
4.3
13
V5
3.0
9
V6
3.0
9
V7
3.7
11
V8
3.0
9
V9
4.3
13
V10
3.0
9
V11
5.0
15


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE DEGREES
OF SUM OF
MEAN
F
TABULAR F
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
1.697
0.848
2.53*
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
34.909
3.491
Error
20
27.636
1.382
TOTAL 32 64.242



* = Significant






CV (%) = 30.54
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

37
Appendix Table 8. Disease incidence at 60 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
5.0
15
V2
5.0
15
V3
3.7
11
V4
4.3
13
V5
4.7
14
V6
5.0
15
V7
5.0
15
V8
5.0
15
V9
5.0
15
V10
5.0
15
V11
4.3
13


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.182
0.091
4.73**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
5.879
0.588
Error
20
2.485
0.124
TOTAL 32
8.545




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 7.46
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

38
Appendix Table 9. Disease incidence at 75 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
5.0
15
V2
5.0
15
V3
4.3
13
V4
4.3
13
V5
4.7
14
V6
5.0
15
V7
5.0
15
V8
5.0
15
V9
5.0
15
V10
5.0
15
V11
3.3
10


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.061
0.030
6.37**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
8.303
0.830
Error
20
2.606
0.130
TOTAL 32
10.970




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 7.69
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

39
Appendix Table 10. Disease incidence at 90 DAP
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
5.0
15
V2
5.0
15
V3
3.7
11
V4
4.0
12
V5
4.7
14
V6
5.0
15
V7
5.0
15
V8
5.0
15
V9
5.0
15
V10
5.0
15
V11
1.3
4


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.061
0.030
12.81**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
38.061
0.806
Error
20
5.939
0.297
TOTAL 32
44.061




** = Highly significant




CV (%) = 12.32
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

40
Appendix Table 11. Non-marketable number
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
16
47
V2
9
26
V3
6
17
V4
23
70
V5
23
68
V6
11
32
V7
7
22
V8
2
7
V9
6
18
V10
4
11
V11
3
10


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
155.697
77.848
5.22*
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
1673.212
167.321
Error
20
640.970
32.048
TOTAL 32
2469.879




** = Highly significant




CV (%) = 29.39


Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

41
Appendix Table 12. Non-marketable weight
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
0.88
2.65
V2
0.37
1.10
V3
0.67
2.00
V4
0.95
2.85
V5
1.38
4.15
V6
0.67
2.00
V7
0.33
1.00
V8
0.97
2.90
V9
0.37
1.10
V10
0.38
1.15
V11
0.50
1.50


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
2.542
1.271
1.12ns
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
3.385
0.339
Error
20
6.068
0.303
TOTAL 32
11.995




ns = Not significant





CV (%) = 27.49
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

42
Appendix Table 13. Marketable number
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
44
133
V2
29
87
V3
35
105
V4
67
202
V5
44
131
V6
47
142
V7
47
142
V8
40
121
V9
31
93
V10
32
96
V11
40
121


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
565.515
282.758
4.70**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
3449.212
344.921
Error
20
1469.152
73.458
TOTAL 32
5483.879




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 20.60
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

43
Appendix Table 14. Marketable weight
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
13.45
40.35
V2
3.75
11.25
V3
12.70
38.10
V4
15.80
47.40
V5
9.42
28.25
V6
15.35
46.05
V7
14.42
43.25
V8
15.07
45.20
V9
4.55
13.65
V10
8.33
25.00
V11
15.07
45.20


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
34.026
17.013
6.68**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
585.177
58.518
Error
20
175.292
8.765
TOTAL 32
794.495




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 25.46


Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

44
Appendix Table 15. Sugar content
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
8.2
24.7
V2
9.5
28.6
V3
7.2
21.5
V4
6.7
20.0
V5
6.6
19.8
V6
6.4
19.1
V7
7.0
21.0
V8
6.3
18.9
V9
9.7
29.2
V10
9.0
26.9
V11
8.5
25.6


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.051
0.025
9.76
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
50.563
5.056
Error
20
10.362
0.518
TOTAL 32












CV (%) = 9.30
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

45
Appendix Table 16. Dry matter content
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
30
89
V2
32
97
V3
28
83
V4
30
91
V5
31
93
V6
28
84
V7
29
87
V8
28
85
V9
36
108
V10
34
101
V11
32
95


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.788
0.394
31.01**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
194.545
19.455
Error
20
12.545
0.627
TOTAL 32
207.879




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 2.59


Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

46
Appendix Table 17. Total weight
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
14.33
43.00
V2
4.12
12.35
V3
13.37
40.10
V4
16.75
50.25
V5
10.80
32.40
V6
16.02
48.05
V7
14.75
44.25
V8
16.03
48.10
V9
4.92
14.75
V10
8.72
26.15
V11
15.57
46.70


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
19.493
9.746
6.92**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
618.210
1.821
Error
20
178.590
8.930
TOTAL 32
816.294




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 24.28
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

47
Appendix Table 18. Yield
VARIETY TOTAL MEAN
V1
23.89
71.66
V2
6.86
20.58
V3
22.28
66.83
V4
27.91
83.74
V5
18.00
54.00
V6
26.69
80.07
V7
24.58
73.74
V8
26.72
80.16
V9
8.19
24.58
V10
14.52
43.57
V11
25.94
77.83


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
54.174
27.087
6.92**
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
1717.014
171.701
Error
20
495.904
24.795
TOTAL 32
2267.092




** = Highly significant





CV (%) = 24.28
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

48
Appendix Table 19. Scores1 for appearance of the boiled sweetpotato roots with 11
varieties

JUDGE NO. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 TOTAL
1
5
4
5
4
3
5
4
5
4
4
4
47
2
5
5
5
4
5
2
5
5
5
5
1
47
3
5
5
5
2
2
5
4
2
5
5
5
44
4
4
5
5
3
5
4
4
5
5
5
1
46
5
5
4
5
3
4
5
3
2
5
5
5
46
6
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
42
7
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
48
8
4
5
5
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
44
9
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
47
10
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
4
47
TOTAL 43 44 48 36 39 42 41 40 45 45 36
458
MEAN
4.3 4.4 4.8 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.5 3.6

1Range of scores: 5, like very much to 1, dislike very much.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
13.855
1.385
1.82ns
2.35 3.37
Treatment
10
2.873
0.319
Error
20
68.327
0.759
TOTAL 32
85.055




ns = Not significant





CV (%) = 20.93
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

49
Appendix Table 20. Scores1 for sweetness of the boiled sweetpotato roots with 11
varieties

JUDGE NO. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 TOTAL
1
4
3
4
2
2
3
2
4
4
3
3
34
2
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
5
3
4
3
41
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
29
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
39
5
4
2
4
3
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
37
6
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
26
7
3
2
4
2
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
35
8
2
2
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
4
3
34
9
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
39
10
4
3
1
3
1
3
3
4
3
3
3
34
TOTAL 32 32 34 27 30 28 25 37 34 34 34
346
MEAN
3.2 3.2 3.4 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.4

1Range of scores: 4, sweet to 1, bland.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF


VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F VALUE
TABULAR F
Replication
10
12.873
1.287
238*
1.95
Treatment
9
18.036
2.004
Error
90
48.764
0.542
TOTAL 109
79.673

* = Significant





CV (%) = 20.93
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

50
Appendix Table 21. Scores1 for fibrousness of the boiled sweetpotato roots with 11
varieties

JUDGE NO. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 TOTAL
1
4
2
3
3
2
3
2
4
4
3
2
32
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
19
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
13
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
14
5
4
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
23
6
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
27
7
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
35
8
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
38
9
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
2
35
10
1
2
4
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
28
TOTAL 23 21 25 23 24 27 21 27 26 26 21
264
MEAN
2.3 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.1

1Range of scores: 4, very fibrous to 1, not fibrous.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF


VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F VALUE
TABULAR F
Replication
10
5.600
0.560
1.15ns
1.95
Treatment
9
65.127
7.236
Error
90
43.673
0.485
TOTAL 109
114.673

ns = Not significant





CV (%) = 20.93
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

51
Appendix Table 22. Scores1 for flesh color of the boiled sweetpotato roots with 11
varieties

JUDGE NO. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 TOTAL
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
25
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
29
3
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
22
4
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
2
24
5
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
24
6
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
22
7
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
29
8
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
6
2
27
9
2
3
4
2
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
31
10
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
40
TOTAL 19 28 23 18 25 26 22 23 27 30 22
263
MEAN
1.9 2.8 2.3 1.8 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.2

1Range of scores: 4, very fibrous to 1, not fibrous.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF


VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F VALUE
TABULAR F
Replication
10
13.691
1.369
2.60*
1.95
Treatment
9
9.100
1.011
Error
90
47.400
0.527
TOTAL 109
70.191

* = Significant





CV (%) = 30.35
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

52
Appendix Table 23. Scores1 for textural moisture of the boiled sweetpotato roots with 11
varieties

JUDGE NO. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 TOTAL
1
6
3
6
6
5
6
7
7
6
6
6
64
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
24
3
3
6
5
2
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
52
4
3
5
3
5
6
5
5
6
3
5
5
51
5
6
7
7
6
6
6
5
2
5
6
5
61
6
2
6
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
28
7
6
7
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
7
69
8
6
6
3
5
6
5
7
7
6
6
7
63
9
7
4
6
4
4
5
6
5
5
5
4
54
10
6
7
4
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
5
64
TOTAL 48 53 45 46 49 49 51 47 44 49 49
530
MEAN
4.8 5.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.9 4.9

1Range of scores: 7, very dry to 1, very wet.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF


VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F VALUE
TABULAR F
Replication
10
6.794
0.676
0.56ns
1.95
Treatment
9
194.000
21.556
Error
90
109.600
1.216
TOTAL 109
ns = Not significant





CV (%) = 20.93
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

53
Appendix Table 24. Scores1 for general acceptability of the boiled sweetpotato roots
with 11 varieties

JUDGE NO. V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 TOTAL
1
4
4
5
4
3
5
4
4
3
4
3
43
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
48
3
2
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
46
4
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
51
5
5
5
4
2
4
3
1
5
5
4
5
43
6
2
5
1
3
4
5
3
2
5
2
4
36
7
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
49
8
5
5
3
3
5
3
4
5
5
4
4
46
9
4
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
51
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
46
TOTAL 39 45 40 37 42 44 38 42 47 42 43
456
MEAN
3.9 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.4 3.8 4.2 4.7 4.2 4.3

1Range of scores: 3, deeply colored to 1, pale colored.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F

VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
TABULAR F
Replication
10
9.218
0.922
1.34ns
1.95
Treatment
9
16.445
1.827
Error
90
62.055
0.689
TOTAL 109
87.718

ns = Not significant





CV (%) = 30.35
Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries
Under Sapid, Mankayan, Benguet Co.ndition / Rolly C. Gayawet. 2009

Document Outline

  • Yield Evaluation and Farmer Acceptability of Eleven Sweetpotato Entries Under Sapid, Mankayan
    • BIBLIOGRAPHY
    • ABSTRACT
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • INTRODUCTION
    • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
    • LITERATURE CITED
    • APPENDICES