BIBLIOGRAPHY PUYAO, JERRY B. APRIL 2010....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PUYAO, JERRY B. APRIL 2010. Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’
Base-dressed with Varying Rates of Plantmate Organic Fertilizers. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Silvestre L. Kudan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted from December 2009 to January 2010 at Balili
Experement Areaa Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet to evaluate the
growth and yield of romaine lettuce applied with different rates of plantmate organic
fertilizer, determine the best rate of plantmate organic fertilizer to romaine lettuce, and
the profitability of romaine lettuce using the varying rates of plantmate organic fertilizer.
Results of the study revealed that there were no significant differences on all the
growth and yield of romaine lettuce base-dressed with varying rates of plantmate organic
fertilizer in he experiment area having a pH of 6.6, 2% organic matter content, 126 ppm
phosphorous and366 ppm potassium. However, there was a general trend of increasing
yield as the rate of plantmate application was increased from 0 to 60 grams per hill
though the differences were slight. Economically, there turn on investment was highest
from the highest rate of 60 grams per hill with 462.0% or P4.62 for every peso invested
in the production. This was followed by the rate of 50 grams per hill with 443.0% ROI or
P4.443 return for every peso spent in the production. The rest of the treatments with
lower of application obtained lower return on investments.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..........
i
Abstract……...……………………………………………………………………..
i
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………..
ii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crop…………………………………………………….
3
Pharmacological Importance and
Nutritional Value…………………………………………………………… 3
Soil and Climate Adaptation……………………………………………….. 4
Importance of Organic Fertilizer…………………………………………... 4
Effects of Organic Fertilizer……………………………………………….. 5
Plantmate Organic Fertilizer………………………………………………..
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials…………………………………………………………………...
8
Methods……………………………………………………………………
8
Data Gathered……………………………………………………………..
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Number of Days from Transplanting
to Harvest………………………………………………………………….. 12
Plant Height at Harvest ……………………………………………………
12
Weight of Marketable Yield…….…………………………………………. 14
Weight of Non-marketable
ii
Yield ………..…………………………………………………………….. 15
Total Yield …………………………………………………………………
17
Weight of Individual Plants ………………………………………………..
18
Computed Yield Per Hectare…….…………………………………………
20
Cost and Return Analysis…………………................................................... 21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary……………………………………………………………………
23
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….
23
Recommendation…………………………………………………………...
24
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
Lettuce is one of the most important vegetable crops in Benguet because it
matures early and has higher price. This is especially true to organically grown lettuce,
which leads all salad crops in terms of demand. The trend in vegetable production is
towards organic which is synonymous to “biological” or “ecological” according to the
Philippine National Standard. This trend is due to the observation that the quality of food
production is low and has direct relation to health problems, environmental pollution
contributing to weather changes aside from the expensive inputs affecting the income of
the farmers.
Throughout the past decades, fertilizers were being used extensively on vegetable
crops. Nowadays the leading fertilizer materials were the inorganic or chemical ones.
Organic one is seldom used. This situation resulted to the acidic condition of the soil,
decline of soil fertility and proliferation of soil form diseases, thus decreasing the total
yield of crops and several cases like bankruptcy of farmers.
The old method of farming which uses fertilizers such as manure and compost
increases the organic content of the soil. The problem of acidic condition of the soil,
decline of soil fertility and other diseases to be reduced, hence this study.
The importance of the study will guide the farmers in planning the rate of organic
fertilizer that would enhance growth and yield of romaine lettuce. Aside from the
information for farmers to use as a guide in the production of romaine lettuce, researchers
who would like to improve the cultural practices in growing the crop will have the
baseline information how to begging. Results of the study will also be added to the
science and technology to benefit the next generations.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
2
The objectives of the study are to determine the effect of the different rates of the
organic fertilizer on the growth and yield of romaine lettuce, to determine the best rates
of the organic fertilizer on the growth and yield of romaine lettuce and to determine the
economic value of using the different rates of plantmate organic fertilizer.
The study was conducted at Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet from December 2009 to January 2010.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crop
According to Groman (1997), there are three main kinds of lettuce (1) head (2)
leaf and (3) romaine. Head lettuce had leaves that curl around the center of the plant
forming a ball-shaped head. Crisp lettuce or ice burg has tight head and brittle, juicy
leaves. Leaf lettuce forms dense, leafy clumps instead of head. Gardeners grow more of it
than any kinds. Most leaf lettuce has tight green leaves but a few red varieties have been
developed for their taste and for the attractive color they give to salads. The waxy
crinkled leaves vary in shaped among various type of leaf lettuce.
On the other hand, romaine lettuce grows long and upright and its leaves are
inward. The leaves are tender can be easily damage in shipment. Romaine lettuce is the
most nutritious.
Tied Jeams (1964), stated that lettuce a smooth annual plant of the family
Compositae is extremely grown for its crisp tender leaves use as salad. Lettuce grows on
well limed soil or sandy texture that permits adequate access to oxygen.
McCollum (1942), said that after the leaf formation, leaf branching and flowering
stem developed. These stem range in height from 90-120 cm and bear clusters of small
yellow flowering heads.
Pharmacological Importance and
Nutritional Value
Ensmiger et al (1986), romaine lettuce is guaranteed to be packet with nutrients.
The vitamins and minerals found in romaine lettuce are especially good for the
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
4
alleviation or preservation of many healthy complaints due to its extremely calories
content and high water volume. Romaine lettuce while over cooked in the nutrition world
is actually nutritious food. Based on its nutrient density the food ranking system qualified
it as excelled source of vitamin A, C, folute mangganese and a good source of dietary
fiber. The fiber adds another plus in its collism of heart healthy effects. In the colon,
fibers bind to bile salts and remove them from the body. This force the body to make
more bile which is helpful because it must breakdown cholesterol. Folic acid (Vitamins
B) in needed by the body to convert a damaging chemical called “homocysteinc” into
another, beneath substance. In addition, romaine lettuce is very good source of potassium
which is useful in lowering high blood pressure.
Soil and Climate Adaptation
Temperature requirement Groman (1997), wrote that most kinds of commercial
lettuce grow well in 21ºC and 24ºC. In contrast, Wallace (1975), mentioned that the
optimum high for lettuce is 10-15 ºC which a day temperature of 15-20 ºC. Seed
germination in 6-10 days, can be directly planted.
According to McCollum (1942), lettuce can be grown in wise variety of soil,
including much of sandy or silty loam prefers a moist but well-drained soil type, rich in
organic matter, sandy loam or loam which pH ranging from 6.5-7.5.
Importance of Organic Fertilizer
Plants use nutrients at different rates and at different time, during the growing
season, for best results ensure that the nutrients are available on a consistent basis organic
fertilizer are like an insurance policy. Most contain rock powder and complex proteins
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
5
that are not very water-soluble. This means organic fertilizers persist in the soil for many
months or even years. They become part of the soil, improving its texture and long-term
fertility.
Organic fertilizers (including compost) also feed the diverse food web of bacteria,
fungi, earth worms and other beneficial soil life. These organisms convert soil minerals
into available nutrients that can be absorbed by plant roots. These organisms also
improve the texture of the soil by creating passage way for air and water and aggregating
soil particles into “crumbs”.
Organic matter added to garden soil improves the soil structure and feeds the
micro-organism and insects. The more beneficial micro-organism your soil can support
the less bad organism will survive. The good guys feed on harmful microbes like
nematodes and certain soil born diseases.
They also release their nutrients into the soil when they die. So the more
beneficial micro-organisms that are in the soil, the more nutrients will be in the soil. And
many types of organic matter add still more soil nutrients to be mix.
Effects of Organic Fertilizer
In Bulacan, Abalos (2004), reported that the processing of chicken dung into
compost is used to improve the condition of the soil with the element needed by plant to
achieve good harvest while maintaining health safety to the produce. It was proven that
the use of organic fertilizers help farmers reduce production cost and help conserve the
biodiversity of the environment.
Sabas (2002), also emphasized that the beauty of composting is that can be done
from virtually any biodegradable waste in almost any quality… its full potential as the
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
6
basis of organic food growing and as an expensive yet highly marketable replacement of
synthetic chemical fertilizers is only now becoming wide appreciated.
In 1982, Cooke reported that organic fertilizers increase organic content. As a
result, soil alkalinity is increased. In addition simple supply of organic matter helps to
keep the soil loose and prevents packing, facilitates digging, cultivation and enables roots
of crop to penetrate the soil, readily increase water holding capacity, provides essential
nutrients needed for plant growth.
For centuries, the use of farm manure has been synonymous with a successful and
stable agriculture. It supplies organic matter and plant nutrients to the soil and generally;
farm manure are conserving and protecting (Brady, 1974).
According to Abadilla (1982), crops applied with organic matter have a greater
resistance to pest and diseases. The author mentioned that humic acid and growth
substances are absorb into plant tissue through the roots and that they favor their
formation protein by influencing the synthesis of enzymes that will increase the vigor of
insect resistance of the plant. Moreover, soil high in organic matter allow little or no soil
borne diseases because of the oxygen-ethyline cycle in the soil. Besides, the sap of the
plant fertilized with organic matter, not only does humus confer immunity to plant pest
and diseases, it also improves the quality of crops characteristics that has a very definite
commercial value.
Furthermore, Cadiz and Aycardo (1977) believed that for a successful and continuous
multiple cropping practices with vegetable crops, there is a need for a sustained
application of compost to provide the food supply needs of a crops as well as feed the
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
7
beneficial flora and faunal especially the microbes that makes the field-up nutrients
available.
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers
According to brochure, the plantmate organic fertilizer product is the result of an
accelerated decomposition of bio-degradable materials, both of plants and animals origin
through an advance biofermentation process involving more than twenty (20) naturally-
occuring beneficial micro-organisms to enhance its efficacy as a functional compound.
Plantmate consists\\ of chemical properties such as the total of nitrogen 2.44%
(4.14% by basis), total phosphorus 3.74% (6.34% on dry basis), total potassium 3.61%
(6.13% on dry basis), total calcium 4.46% (7.5% on dry basis), total magnesium 0.17%
(0.32% on dry basis). It is also chelated micronutrient and amino acid that is adequate
and well balanced. Growth promotants and functional compounds are adequate.
Physical appearance of plantmate is loose, friable and very stable organic matter
with high humus content, dark brown to black in color. It does not have any burning
effects on plants, safe and no pathogen. The pH is 7.5, which is lightly basis.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used in the study were seeds of romaine lettuce plantmate (organic
fertilizer), seedling trays, soil media for seedling (rice hull + compost + garden soil),
weighing scale and farm tools and equipment.
The study was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replication. The rates of organic fertilizer application were the treatments as follows:
CODE Treatment Application per plot
R1 no application (check) 0
R2 10 g per hill 1.0 kg.
R3 20 g per hill 2.0 kg
R4 30 g per hill 3.0 kg
R5 40 g per hill 4.0 kg
R6 50 g per hill 5.0 kg
R7 60 g per hill 6.0 kg
Land Preparation
Twenty one plots measuring 1m x 5m were prepared for the study. The plots were
dug, leveled then applied with the organic fertilizer specified in the treatments. The
organic fertilizer was mixed thoroughly with the soil ready for planting.
Seedling Production
Seedling trays were used in growing the seedlings. The soil media was sterilized,
placed into the seedling trays then each hole was planted with a seed of romaine lettuce.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
9
Watering was done immediately after sowing the seeds and this was done twice a week
up to transplanting the seedling which was 21 days after sowing the seeds.
Transplanting
The 21-day old seedling were carefully pushed out of the seedling tray and were
transplanted following the triangular arrangement with four rows at 20cm x 20cm spacing
or 100 seedlings per plot.
Care and Management
The experiment area was irrigated after transplanting the seedlings and was done
every after three days or twice a week up to harvest. Weeds was uprooted as they emerge
and if there were insects, they were collected and crushed. Liquid Bio fertilizer was
applied two weeks after transplanting to supplement the alnus compost mixed with the
soil before transplanting the seedling.
Harvesting
The plants were harvested 35 to 40 days from transplanting the seedlings. The
plants were cut at the base with a sharp knife and these were packed in biodegradable
polyethelyne bags at 250 grams and were sold to the organic market.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
10
Data Gathered
The data to be gathered, tabulated, computed and means subjected to separation
test by the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were the following:
1. Number of days from transplanting to harvesting. This was the number of days
from transplanting the seedlings to the day the plant was harvested.
2. Plant height at harvest (cm). Ten sample plants were randomly selected and
measured with a foot rule from the base of the plant to the tip of the longest leaves at
harvest time.
3. Weight of the marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of all the plants
that were sold in the market without defects.
4. Weight of non-marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of non-
marketable plants with defects such as malformed plants, disease-and insect-damaged
that were not be sold to the market.
5. Total yield (kg/plot). This was the total weight of marketable and non-
marketable plants per treatment plot.
6. Weight of individual plant (g). This was taken using the formula:
Plant weight (g)
=
Total plant weight/plot
Number of harvested plants/plot
7. Computed yield per hectare (tons/ha). The yield per plot was converted to tons
per hectare by multiplying the yield per plot by 2000 then the answer was divided by
1000. Two thousand is the number of plots per hectare based on the plot size (1m/x/5/m)
used in the study. Meanwhile 1000 is the weight of one ton.
8. Cost and return analysis. All expenses that were incurred in the study were
recorded and the return on investment (ROI) was computed using the formula:
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
11
ROI (%) = Gross sales – Total expenses X 100
Total expenses
9. Documentation through pictures. Observations that cannot be measured were
recorded in a photograph.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Number of Days from Transplanting to Harvest
There were no significant differences among the treatments in the number of days
from transplanting to harvesting (Table 1). This means that the different rates of applying
the organic fertilizer did not affect the maturity period.
Plant Height at Harvest
As presented in Table 2 and Figure 1, there were no significant differences among
the treatments on the plant height at harvest. Based on the control plots with no fertilizer
application which did not differ from those plots with organic fertilizer, this result may
suggest that the area used in the study may still support romaine lettuce.
Table 1. Number of days from transplanting to harvest
TREATMENTS
NUMBER OF DAYS
0 (no plantmate application) 48a
10 grams per hill 48a
20 grams per hill 48a
30 grams per hill 48a
40 grams per hill 48a
50 grams per hill 48a
60 grams per hill 48a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
13
Figure 1. Photograph showing the similar plant height on the treatment plots
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
14
Table 2. Plant height at harvest
TREATMENT
HEIGHT (cm)
0 (no plantmate application) 20.71a
10 grams per hill 21.29a
20 grams per hill 21.02a
30 grams per hill 21.00a
40 grams per hill 21.23a
50 grams per hill 21.53a
60 grams per hill 21.69a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Marketable Yield
Table 3 shows that there was a general increase in the marketable yield of romaine
lettuce as the rate of organic fertilizer was increased. However, statistical analysis shows
slight differences among the increasing rates, including the plots without fertilizer as
control. It might be that the soil with 6.6 pH, 2% organic matter, 126 ppm phosphorous
and 366 ppm potassium is enough to support the romaine lettuce.
Weight of Non-marketable Yield
There were no significant differences among the treatments in the non-marketable
yield (Table 4). This means that the varying rates of plantmate organic fertilizer did not
influence the non-marketable yield. However, Figure 2 shows some plants infected with
rotting and damaged by insect larvae.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
15
Table 3. Weight of marketable yield
TREATMENT
MARKETABLE YIELD (kg/plot)
0 (no plantmate application) 6.58a
10 grams per hill 6.75a
20 grams per hill 7.17a
30 grams per hill 8.33a
40 grams per hill 7.92a
50 grams per hill 9.42a
60 grams per hill 10.75a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 4. Weight of non-marketable yield
TREATMENT
NON-MARKETABLE YIELD (kg/plot)
0 (no plantmate application)
4.17a
10 grams per hill
3.92a
20 grams per hill 3.83a
30 grams per hill 3.75a
40 grams per hill 3.92a
50 grams per hill 5.03a
60 grams per hill
4.83a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
16
Damaged by insect larvae by eating the midribs
Damaged by insect larvae by eating the midribs
Base of leaves rotting
Figure 2. The plants infected with disease and damaged by insect larvae
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
17
Total Yield
The total yield from the different treatments did not show significant differences
among the treatment (Table5). This may be due to the slight differences in plant height,
weight of marketable yield and weight of non-marketable yield presented earlier. More
over, the high pH of 6.6, 126 ppm phosphorous, 366 ppm potassium and 2% organic
matter of the area used in the study may have provide the plants enough nutrients foe
similar yield performance.
Weight of Individual Plants
Table 6 shows that weight of individual plant. The expected trend of gradual
increase in weight of individual plants as the rate of plantmate organic fertilizer was
increased was not attained. However, Figure 3 shows the smaller and higher rates such as
50 and 60 grams per hill have obviously bigger plats.
Table 5. Total yield
TREATMENT
TOTAL YIELD (kg/plot)
0 (no plantmate application) 10.75a
10 grams per hill 10.67a
20 grams per hill 11.00a
30 grams per hill 12.08a
40 grams per hill 11.83a
50 grams per hill 14.50a
60 grams per hill 15.58a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
18
Sample of harvested romaine lettuce ready to be packed
Figure 3. The lower photograph shows the expected trend of increasing size
of plant as the rate of organic fertilizer application increased
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
19
Table 6. Weight of individual plants
TREATMENT WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL (g)
0 (no plantmate application) 118.00a
10 grams per hill 114.33a
20 grams per hill 119.00a
30 grams per hill 132.00a
40 grams per hill 128.00a
50 grams per hill 151.33a
60 grams per hill 163.33a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Computed Yield per Hectare
The computed yield per hectare following an increasing trend from 6.58 tons to
10.75 tons as the rate of applying plantmate organic fertilizer started from 0 to 60 grams
per bill (Table 7). However, statistical analysis did not show any significant differences
on the computed yield per hectare.
This result follows the non-significant differences obtained from all the data
gathered which was explained earlier that the experiment area has high nutrient elements
which might have negated the effect of the rates if the fertilizer application.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
20
Table 7. Computed yield per hectare
TREATMENTS
COMPUTED YIELD (tons/ha)
0 (no plantmate application) 6.58a
10 grams per hill 6.75a
20 grams per hill 7.17a
30 grams per hill 8.33a
40 grams per hill 7.92a
50 grams per hill 9.42a
60 grams per hill 10.75a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 8 presents the yield and sales from the 15 sq m. area planted with romaine
lettuce and the expenses incurred. Although the differences in yield showed slight
increases as the rate of applying plantmate was increased, the highest rate of 60 grams per
hill obtained the highest return on investment of 462.0% or Php 4.62 return for every
peso spent in the production. This was followed by the rate of 50 grams per hi9ll with an
ROI of 443.0% while the lowest of 10 grams per hill had the lowest ROI of 362.0%. This
means that even if there were no significant differences in the yield, the return on
investment can pinpoint the rate of application to give highest profit.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
21
Table 8. Cost and return analysis in 15 sq m area
________________________________________________________________________
ITEM
RATES OF PLANTMATE APPLICATION
Control 10g 20g 30g 40g 50g 60g
________________________________________________________________________
Yield (kg)
32.25 32.00 33.00 36.25 35.50 43.50 46.75
Sales (Php) 3,225 3,200 3,300 3,625 3,550 4,350 4,675
Farm Inputs:
Plantmate
0 15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 90.00
Packing materials 142.00 141.00 145.00 160.00 156.00 191.00 206.00
Gasoline 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86
Labor cost
Digging plots 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57
Transplanting 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28
Irrigation 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43
Harvesting 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57
Expenses (Php) 677.71 692.00 711.00 741.00 752.00 801.00 832.00
Net/ loss 2,547 2,508 2,589 2,884 2,798 3,549 3,845
ROI% 376.00 362.00 364.00 389.00 372.00 443.00 462.00
Note: The selling price per kilo was Php 100.00
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted from December 2009 to January 2010 at Balili
Experiment Area, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet to evaluate the growth
and yield of romaine lettuce applied with different rates of plantmate organic fertilizer;
determine the best rate of plantmate application to romaine lettuce, and the profitability
using the various rates.
There were no significant differences on the growth and yield of romaine lettuce
applied with the different rates of plantamte organic fertilizer, thus, This study did not
determine the best rate with the fertility level that the experiment area used in the study.
However, there was an increasing yield as the rate of plantmate was increased. The cost
and return analysis show that the 60 grams plantmate per hill obtained the highest ROI of
462.0% or Php 4.62 return for every peso spent in the production followed by 50 grams
with an ROI of 443.0% while the lowest of 10 grams per hill had the Lowest ROI of
362.0%.
Conclusion
Based on the result presented and discussed, the application of plantmate organic
fertilizer to a soil with 6.6 pH, 126 ppm phosphorous, 366 ppm potassium and 2%
organic matter content can not show significant differences in growth and yield of
romaine lettuce applied with varying rates from 0 to 60 grams per hill.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
23
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended, that with the soil fertility level of 2% organic matter
content, 126 ppm phosphorus, 366 ppm potassium and with soil pH of 6.6, romaine
lettuce may not need the application of plantmate organic fertilizer. However, when the
grower want to obtain higher return on investment, the application of 50 to 60 grams per
hill or 5 to 6 kilos of plantmate per 1m x 5m plot with 100 romaine lettuce plant density
is still economically beneficial when the selling price per kilo is Php 100.00 as in the
study.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
24
LITERATURE CITED
ABADILLA, D. C. 1982. Organic Farming. Afa Publications Ins. Quezon City. pp.81-
100.
ABALOS, J. 2004. Observation tour at Bulakan. Batagakan Newsletter. 2(2):8-9
BRADY, N. C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 8th Edition. New York. Mac
Millan PublishingCo. Inc. pp.685.
CADIZ, T. G. AND H. B. AYCARDO. 1977 Multi Cropping with Vegetable
Production.IN; Vegetable Production. UPLB, College of Agriculture, Laguna p.
194-200.
COOKE, G. W. 1982. Fertilizer for Maximum Yield. 3rd Edition. London, Pp.465.
ENSMINGER, A. H. ENSMIGER and M. J. K. ENSMIGER. 1986. Food Health
Nutrition Encyclopedia. California: Pegus Press, p.198.
GROMAN, J. 1997. The World Book Encyclopedia. London. World book Inc. (2) 94/95
MCCOLLUM, P. J. 1942. The American Encyclopedia. p.258
SABAS, L. E. 2002. Handbook on Zero-waste Technology. Recycling Movement of the
Phillipines, Inc. p.26.
TIED JEAMS, X. A. 1964. Collier’s Encyclopedia. The Crowell Collier Publication, Co.
4:523
WALLACE, D. H. 1975. Genetics, environmental and plant response. In Vegetable
Training Manual Villareal/CR.L. and D.H. Wallace ed. UPLB. College, Los
Banos Laguna. p.20.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
25
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Number of days from transplanting to harvesting
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 48 48 48 144 48
T2 48 48 48 144 48
T3 48 48 48 144 48
T4 48 48 48 144 48
T5 48 48 48 144
48
T6 48 48 48 144
48
T7 48 48 48 144
48
TOTAL 336 336 336 1008 336
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0 0
Treatment 6 0 0 0ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 0 0
TOTAL 20 0
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 0%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
26
Appendix Table 2. Plant height at harvest
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 20.34 21.48 20.32 62.18 20.73
T2 20.48 22.18 21.20 63.86 21.29
T3 20.19 21.55 21.31 63.05 21.02
T4 21.11 21.48 20.91 63.20 21.17
T5 21.61 21.28 20.81 63.70 21.23
T6 21.53 20.38 21.85 63.76 21.25
T7 2.48 20.58 23.00 65.06 21.69
TOTAL 146.74 148.93 149.40 445.11 149.38
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.520 0.260
Treatment 6 1.581 0.264 0.41ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 7.679 0.640
TOTAL 20 7.02
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 3.78%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
27
Appendix Table 3. Weight of marketable yield
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 6.75 9.00 4.00 19.75 6.58
T2 7.75 8.25 4.25 20.25 6.75
T3 7.00 8.50 6.00 21.50 7.17
T4 8.25 7.75 9.00 25.00 8.33
T5 8.00 7.25 8.50 23.75 7.92
T6 7.75 8.25 12.25 28.25 9.42
T7 8.25 6.75 17.25 32.25 10.75
TOTAL 53.75 55.75 61.25 170.75 56.92
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 4.310 2.155
Treatment 6 41.494 6.916 0.84ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 99.149 8.262
TOTAL 20 144.952
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 35.35%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
28
Appendix Table 4. Weight of non-marketable yield
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 5.00 4.25 3.25 12.50 4.17
T2 6.00 3.25 2.50 11.75 3.92
T3 5.00 2.50 4.00 11.50 3.83
T4 4.50 2.75 4.00 11.25 3.75
T5 4.25 1.50 6.00 11.75 3.92
T6 5.50 3.00 6.75 15.25 5.08
T7 5.75 2.75 6.00 14.50 4.48
TOTAL 36.00 20.00 32.50 88.50 29.50
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 20.214 10.107
Treatment 6 5.036 0.839 0.59ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 17.036 1.420
TOTAL 20 42.286
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 28.27%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
29
Appendix Table 5. Total yield
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 11.75 13.25 7.25 32.25 10.75
T2 13.75 11.00 6.75 32.00 10.67
T3 12.00 11.00 10.00 33.00 11.00
T4 12.75 10.50 13.00 36.25 12.08
T5 12.25 8.75 14.50 35.50 11.83
T6 13.25 11.25 19.00 43.50 14.50
T7 14.00 9.50 23.25 46.75 15.58
TOTAL 89.75 75.75 93.75 259.25 86.41
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 25.524 12.762
Treatment 6 67.893 11.315 0.79ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 172.768 14.387
TOTAL 20 266.185
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 30.74%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
30
Appendix Table 6. Weight of individual plants
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 130 144 80 354 118.00
T2 146 120 77 343 114.33
T3 129 121 107 357 119.00
T4 138 118 140 396 132.00
T5 129 102 153 384 128.00
T6 139 117 198 454 151.33
T7 146 109 235 490 163.33
TOTAL 957.00 831.00 990.00 2778.00 925.99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2011.714 1005.857
Treatment 6 6144.286 1024.048 0.75ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 16424.286 1368.690
TOTAL 20 24580.286
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 27.97%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
31
Appendix Table 7. Computed yield per hectar
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 23.50 27.50 14.50 65.50 21.83
T2 27.50 23.00 13.50 64.00 21.33
T3 24.00 22.00 20.00 66.00 22.00
T4 25.50 21.00 26.00 72.50 24.17
T5 24.50 17.50 29.00 11.00 23.67
T6 27.50 22.50 38.00 88.00 29.33
T7 28.00 19.00 46.50 93.50 31.17
TOTAL 180.00 152.50 187.50 520.00 173.50
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 98.00 49.000
Treatment 6 274.286 45.714 0.78ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 701.500 58.458
TOTAL 20 1073.786
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 30.85%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
PUYAO, JERRY B. APRIL 2010. Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’
Base-dressed with Varying Rates of Plantmate Organic Fertilizers. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Silvestre L. Kudan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted from December 2009 to January 2010 at Balili
Experement Areaa Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet to evaluate the
growth and yield of romaine lettuce applied with different rates of plantmate organic
fertilizer, determine the best rate of plantmate organic fertilizer to romaine lettuce, and
the profitability of romaine lettuce using the varying rates of plantmate organic fertilizer.
Results of the study revealed that there were no significant differences on all the
growth and yield of romaine lettuce base-dressed with varying rates of plantmate organic
fertilizer in he experiment area having a pH of 6.6, 2% organic matter content, 126 ppm
phosphorous and366 ppm potassium. However, there was a general trend of increasing
yield as the rate of plantmate application was increased from 0 to 60 grams per hill
though the differences were slight. Economically, there turn on investment was highest
from the highest rate of 60 grams per hill with 462.0% or P4.62 for every peso invested
in the production. This was followed by the rate of 50 grams per hill with 443.0% ROI or
P4.443 return for every peso spent in the production. The rest of the treatments with
lower of application obtained lower return on investments.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..........
i
Abstract……...……………………………………………………………………..
i
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………..
ii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crop…………………………………………………….
3
Pharmacological Importance and
Nutritional Value…………………………………………………………… 3
Soil and Climate Adaptation……………………………………………….. 4
Importance of Organic Fertilizer…………………………………………... 4
Effects of Organic Fertilizer……………………………………………….. 5
Plantmate Organic Fertilizer………………………………………………..
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials…………………………………………………………………...
8
Methods……………………………………………………………………
8
Data Gathered……………………………………………………………..
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Number of Days from Transplanting
to Harvest………………………………………………………………….. 12
Plant Height at Harvest ……………………………………………………
12
Weight of Marketable Yield…….…………………………………………. 14
Weight of Non-marketable
ii
Yield ………..…………………………………………………………….. 15
Total Yield …………………………………………………………………
17
Weight of Individual Plants ………………………………………………..
18
Computed Yield Per Hectare…….…………………………………………
20
Cost and Return Analysis…………………................................................... 21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary……………………………………………………………………
23
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….
23
Recommendation…………………………………………………………...
24
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
Lettuce is one of the most important vegetable crops in Benguet because it
matures early and has higher price. This is especially true to organically grown lettuce,
which leads all salad crops in terms of demand. The trend in vegetable production is
towards organic which is synonymous to “biological” or “ecological” according to the
Philippine National Standard. This trend is due to the observation that the quality of food
production is low and has direct relation to health problems, environmental pollution
contributing to weather changes aside from the expensive inputs affecting the income of
the farmers.
Throughout the past decades, fertilizers were being used extensively on vegetable
crops. Nowadays the leading fertilizer materials were the inorganic or chemical ones.
Organic one is seldom used. This situation resulted to the acidic condition of the soil,
decline of soil fertility and proliferation of soil form diseases, thus decreasing the total
yield of crops and several cases like bankruptcy of farmers.
The old method of farming which uses fertilizers such as manure and compost
increases the organic content of the soil. The problem of acidic condition of the soil,
decline of soil fertility and other diseases to be reduced, hence this study.
The importance of the study will guide the farmers in planning the rate of organic
fertilizer that would enhance growth and yield of romaine lettuce. Aside from the
information for farmers to use as a guide in the production of romaine lettuce, researchers
who would like to improve the cultural practices in growing the crop will have the
baseline information how to begging. Results of the study will also be added to the
science and technology to benefit the next generations.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
2
The objectives of the study are to determine the effect of the different rates of the
organic fertilizer on the growth and yield of romaine lettuce, to determine the best rates
of the organic fertilizer on the growth and yield of romaine lettuce and to determine the
economic value of using the different rates of plantmate organic fertilizer.
The study was conducted at Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet from December 2009 to January 2010.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crop
According to Groman (1997), there are three main kinds of lettuce (1) head (2)
leaf and (3) romaine. Head lettuce had leaves that curl around the center of the plant
forming a ball-shaped head. Crisp lettuce or ice burg has tight head and brittle, juicy
leaves. Leaf lettuce forms dense, leafy clumps instead of head. Gardeners grow more of it
than any kinds. Most leaf lettuce has tight green leaves but a few red varieties have been
developed for their taste and for the attractive color they give to salads. The waxy
crinkled leaves vary in shaped among various type of leaf lettuce.
On the other hand, romaine lettuce grows long and upright and its leaves are
inward. The leaves are tender can be easily damage in shipment. Romaine lettuce is the
most nutritious.
Tied Jeams (1964), stated that lettuce a smooth annual plant of the family
Compositae is extremely grown for its crisp tender leaves use as salad. Lettuce grows on
well limed soil or sandy texture that permits adequate access to oxygen.
McCollum (1942), said that after the leaf formation, leaf branching and flowering
stem developed. These stem range in height from 90-120 cm and bear clusters of small
yellow flowering heads.
Pharmacological Importance and
Nutritional Value
Ensmiger et al (1986), romaine lettuce is guaranteed to be packet with nutrients.
The vitamins and minerals found in romaine lettuce are especially good for the
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
4
alleviation or preservation of many healthy complaints due to its extremely calories
content and high water volume. Romaine lettuce while over cooked in the nutrition world
is actually nutritious food. Based on its nutrient density the food ranking system qualified
it as excelled source of vitamin A, C, folute mangganese and a good source of dietary
fiber. The fiber adds another plus in its collism of heart healthy effects. In the colon,
fibers bind to bile salts and remove them from the body. This force the body to make
more bile which is helpful because it must breakdown cholesterol. Folic acid (Vitamins
B) in needed by the body to convert a damaging chemical called “homocysteinc” into
another, beneath substance. In addition, romaine lettuce is very good source of potassium
which is useful in lowering high blood pressure.
Soil and Climate Adaptation
Temperature requirement Groman (1997), wrote that most kinds of commercial
lettuce grow well in 21ºC and 24ºC. In contrast, Wallace (1975), mentioned that the
optimum high for lettuce is 10-15 ºC which a day temperature of 15-20 ºC. Seed
germination in 6-10 days, can be directly planted.
According to McCollum (1942), lettuce can be grown in wise variety of soil,
including much of sandy or silty loam prefers a moist but well-drained soil type, rich in
organic matter, sandy loam or loam which pH ranging from 6.5-7.5.
Importance of Organic Fertilizer
Plants use nutrients at different rates and at different time, during the growing
season, for best results ensure that the nutrients are available on a consistent basis organic
fertilizer are like an insurance policy. Most contain rock powder and complex proteins
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
5
that are not very water-soluble. This means organic fertilizers persist in the soil for many
months or even years. They become part of the soil, improving its texture and long-term
fertility.
Organic fertilizers (including compost) also feed the diverse food web of bacteria,
fungi, earth worms and other beneficial soil life. These organisms convert soil minerals
into available nutrients that can be absorbed by plant roots. These organisms also
improve the texture of the soil by creating passage way for air and water and aggregating
soil particles into “crumbs”.
Organic matter added to garden soil improves the soil structure and feeds the
micro-organism and insects. The more beneficial micro-organism your soil can support
the less bad organism will survive. The good guys feed on harmful microbes like
nematodes and certain soil born diseases.
They also release their nutrients into the soil when they die. So the more
beneficial micro-organisms that are in the soil, the more nutrients will be in the soil. And
many types of organic matter add still more soil nutrients to be mix.
Effects of Organic Fertilizer
In Bulacan, Abalos (2004), reported that the processing of chicken dung into
compost is used to improve the condition of the soil with the element needed by plant to
achieve good harvest while maintaining health safety to the produce. It was proven that
the use of organic fertilizers help farmers reduce production cost and help conserve the
biodiversity of the environment.
Sabas (2002), also emphasized that the beauty of composting is that can be done
from virtually any biodegradable waste in almost any quality… its full potential as the
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
6
basis of organic food growing and as an expensive yet highly marketable replacement of
synthetic chemical fertilizers is only now becoming wide appreciated.
In 1982, Cooke reported that organic fertilizers increase organic content. As a
result, soil alkalinity is increased. In addition simple supply of organic matter helps to
keep the soil loose and prevents packing, facilitates digging, cultivation and enables roots
of crop to penetrate the soil, readily increase water holding capacity, provides essential
nutrients needed for plant growth.
For centuries, the use of farm manure has been synonymous with a successful and
stable agriculture. It supplies organic matter and plant nutrients to the soil and generally;
farm manure are conserving and protecting (Brady, 1974).
According to Abadilla (1982), crops applied with organic matter have a greater
resistance to pest and diseases. The author mentioned that humic acid and growth
substances are absorb into plant tissue through the roots and that they favor their
formation protein by influencing the synthesis of enzymes that will increase the vigor of
insect resistance of the plant. Moreover, soil high in organic matter allow little or no soil
borne diseases because of the oxygen-ethyline cycle in the soil. Besides, the sap of the
plant fertilized with organic matter, not only does humus confer immunity to plant pest
and diseases, it also improves the quality of crops characteristics that has a very definite
commercial value.
Furthermore, Cadiz and Aycardo (1977) believed that for a successful and continuous
multiple cropping practices with vegetable crops, there is a need for a sustained
application of compost to provide the food supply needs of a crops as well as feed the
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
7
beneficial flora and faunal especially the microbes that makes the field-up nutrients
available.
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers
According to brochure, the plantmate organic fertilizer product is the result of an
accelerated decomposition of bio-degradable materials, both of plants and animals origin
through an advance biofermentation process involving more than twenty (20) naturally-
occuring beneficial micro-organisms to enhance its efficacy as a functional compound.
Plantmate consists\\ of chemical properties such as the total of nitrogen 2.44%
(4.14% by basis), total phosphorus 3.74% (6.34% on dry basis), total potassium 3.61%
(6.13% on dry basis), total calcium 4.46% (7.5% on dry basis), total magnesium 0.17%
(0.32% on dry basis). It is also chelated micronutrient and amino acid that is adequate
and well balanced. Growth promotants and functional compounds are adequate.
Physical appearance of plantmate is loose, friable and very stable organic matter
with high humus content, dark brown to black in color. It does not have any burning
effects on plants, safe and no pathogen. The pH is 7.5, which is lightly basis.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used in the study were seeds of romaine lettuce plantmate (organic
fertilizer), seedling trays, soil media for seedling (rice hull + compost + garden soil),
weighing scale and farm tools and equipment.
The study was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replication. The rates of organic fertilizer application were the treatments as follows:
CODE Treatment Application per plot
R1 no application (check) 0
R2 10 g per hill 1.0 kg.
R3 20 g per hill 2.0 kg
R4 30 g per hill 3.0 kg
R5 40 g per hill 4.0 kg
R6 50 g per hill 5.0 kg
R7 60 g per hill 6.0 kg
Land Preparation
Twenty one plots measuring 1m x 5m were prepared for the study. The plots were
dug, leveled then applied with the organic fertilizer specified in the treatments. The
organic fertilizer was mixed thoroughly with the soil ready for planting.
Seedling Production
Seedling trays were used in growing the seedlings. The soil media was sterilized,
placed into the seedling trays then each hole was planted with a seed of romaine lettuce.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
9
Watering was done immediately after sowing the seeds and this was done twice a week
up to transplanting the seedling which was 21 days after sowing the seeds.
Transplanting
The 21-day old seedling were carefully pushed out of the seedling tray and were
transplanted following the triangular arrangement with four rows at 20cm x 20cm spacing
or 100 seedlings per plot.
Care and Management
The experiment area was irrigated after transplanting the seedlings and was done
every after three days or twice a week up to harvest. Weeds was uprooted as they emerge
and if there were insects, they were collected and crushed. Liquid Bio fertilizer was
applied two weeks after transplanting to supplement the alnus compost mixed with the
soil before transplanting the seedling.
Harvesting
The plants were harvested 35 to 40 days from transplanting the seedlings. The
plants were cut at the base with a sharp knife and these were packed in biodegradable
polyethelyne bags at 250 grams and were sold to the organic market.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
10
Data Gathered
The data to be gathered, tabulated, computed and means subjected to separation
test by the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were the following:
1. Number of days from transplanting to harvesting. This was the number of days
from transplanting the seedlings to the day the plant was harvested.
2. Plant height at harvest (cm). Ten sample plants were randomly selected and
measured with a foot rule from the base of the plant to the tip of the longest leaves at
harvest time.
3. Weight of the marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of all the plants
that were sold in the market without defects.
4. Weight of non-marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of non-
marketable plants with defects such as malformed plants, disease-and insect-damaged
that were not be sold to the market.
5. Total yield (kg/plot). This was the total weight of marketable and non-
marketable plants per treatment plot.
6. Weight of individual plant (g). This was taken using the formula:
Plant weight (g)
=
Total plant weight/plot
Number of harvested plants/plot
7. Computed yield per hectare (tons/ha). The yield per plot was converted to tons
per hectare by multiplying the yield per plot by 2000 then the answer was divided by
1000. Two thousand is the number of plots per hectare based on the plot size (1m/x/5/m)
used in the study. Meanwhile 1000 is the weight of one ton.
8. Cost and return analysis. All expenses that were incurred in the study were
recorded and the return on investment (ROI) was computed using the formula:
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
11
ROI (%) = Gross sales – Total expenses X 100
Total expenses
9. Documentation through pictures. Observations that cannot be measured were
recorded in a photograph.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Number of Days from Transplanting to Harvest
There were no significant differences among the treatments in the number of days
from transplanting to harvesting (Table 1). This means that the different rates of applying
the organic fertilizer did not affect the maturity period.
Plant Height at Harvest
As presented in Table 2 and Figure 1, there were no significant differences among
the treatments on the plant height at harvest. Based on the control plots with no fertilizer
application which did not differ from those plots with organic fertilizer, this result may
suggest that the area used in the study may still support romaine lettuce.
Table 1. Number of days from transplanting to harvest
TREATMENTS
NUMBER OF DAYS
0 (no plantmate application) 48a
10 grams per hill 48a
20 grams per hill 48a
30 grams per hill 48a
40 grams per hill 48a
50 grams per hill 48a
60 grams per hill 48a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
13
Figure 1. Photograph showing the similar plant height on the treatment plots
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
14
Table 2. Plant height at harvest
TREATMENT
HEIGHT (cm)
0 (no plantmate application) 20.71a
10 grams per hill 21.29a
20 grams per hill 21.02a
30 grams per hill 21.00a
40 grams per hill 21.23a
50 grams per hill 21.53a
60 grams per hill 21.69a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Marketable Yield
Table 3 shows that there was a general increase in the marketable yield of romaine
lettuce as the rate of organic fertilizer was increased. However, statistical analysis shows
slight differences among the increasing rates, including the plots without fertilizer as
control. It might be that the soil with 6.6 pH, 2% organic matter, 126 ppm phosphorous
and 366 ppm potassium is enough to support the romaine lettuce.
Weight of Non-marketable Yield
There were no significant differences among the treatments in the non-marketable
yield (Table 4). This means that the varying rates of plantmate organic fertilizer did not
influence the non-marketable yield. However, Figure 2 shows some plants infected with
rotting and damaged by insect larvae.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
15
Table 3. Weight of marketable yield
TREATMENT
MARKETABLE YIELD (kg/plot)
0 (no plantmate application) 6.58a
10 grams per hill 6.75a
20 grams per hill 7.17a
30 grams per hill 8.33a
40 grams per hill 7.92a
50 grams per hill 9.42a
60 grams per hill 10.75a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 4. Weight of non-marketable yield
TREATMENT
NON-MARKETABLE YIELD (kg/plot)
0 (no plantmate application)
4.17a
10 grams per hill
3.92a
20 grams per hill 3.83a
30 grams per hill 3.75a
40 grams per hill 3.92a
50 grams per hill 5.03a
60 grams per hill
4.83a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
16
Damaged by insect larvae by eating the midribs
Damaged by insect larvae by eating the midribs
Base of leaves rotting
Figure 2. The plants infected with disease and damaged by insect larvae
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
17
Total Yield
The total yield from the different treatments did not show significant differences
among the treatment (Table5). This may be due to the slight differences in plant height,
weight of marketable yield and weight of non-marketable yield presented earlier. More
over, the high pH of 6.6, 126 ppm phosphorous, 366 ppm potassium and 2% organic
matter of the area used in the study may have provide the plants enough nutrients foe
similar yield performance.
Weight of Individual Plants
Table 6 shows that weight of individual plant. The expected trend of gradual
increase in weight of individual plants as the rate of plantmate organic fertilizer was
increased was not attained. However, Figure 3 shows the smaller and higher rates such as
50 and 60 grams per hill have obviously bigger plats.
Table 5. Total yield
TREATMENT
TOTAL YIELD (kg/plot)
0 (no plantmate application) 10.75a
10 grams per hill 10.67a
20 grams per hill 11.00a
30 grams per hill 12.08a
40 grams per hill 11.83a
50 grams per hill 14.50a
60 grams per hill 15.58a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
18
Sample of harvested romaine lettuce ready to be packed
Figure 3. The lower photograph shows the expected trend of increasing size
of plant as the rate of organic fertilizer application increased
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
19
Table 6. Weight of individual plants
TREATMENT WEIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL (g)
0 (no plantmate application) 118.00a
10 grams per hill 114.33a
20 grams per hill 119.00a
30 grams per hill 132.00a
40 grams per hill 128.00a
50 grams per hill 151.33a
60 grams per hill 163.33a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Computed Yield per Hectare
The computed yield per hectare following an increasing trend from 6.58 tons to
10.75 tons as the rate of applying plantmate organic fertilizer started from 0 to 60 grams
per bill (Table 7). However, statistical analysis did not show any significant differences
on the computed yield per hectare.
This result follows the non-significant differences obtained from all the data
gathered which was explained earlier that the experiment area has high nutrient elements
which might have negated the effect of the rates if the fertilizer application.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
20
Table 7. Computed yield per hectare
TREATMENTS
COMPUTED YIELD (tons/ha)
0 (no plantmate application) 6.58a
10 grams per hill 6.75a
20 grams per hill 7.17a
30 grams per hill 8.33a
40 grams per hill 7.92a
50 grams per hill 9.42a
60 grams per hill 10.75a
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 8 presents the yield and sales from the 15 sq m. area planted with romaine
lettuce and the expenses incurred. Although the differences in yield showed slight
increases as the rate of applying plantmate was increased, the highest rate of 60 grams per
hill obtained the highest return on investment of 462.0% or Php 4.62 return for every
peso spent in the production. This was followed by the rate of 50 grams per hi9ll with an
ROI of 443.0% while the lowest of 10 grams per hill had the lowest ROI of 362.0%. This
means that even if there were no significant differences in the yield, the return on
investment can pinpoint the rate of application to give highest profit.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
21
Table 8. Cost and return analysis in 15 sq m area
________________________________________________________________________
ITEM
RATES OF PLANTMATE APPLICATION
Control 10g 20g 30g 40g 50g 60g
________________________________________________________________________
Yield (kg)
32.25 32.00 33.00 36.25 35.50 43.50 46.75
Sales (Php) 3,225 3,200 3,300 3,625 3,550 4,350 4,675
Farm Inputs:
Plantmate
0 15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 90.00
Packing materials 142.00 141.00 145.00 160.00 156.00 191.00 206.00
Gasoline 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86 42.86
Labor cost
Digging plots 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57 38.57
Transplanting 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28 34.28
Irrigation 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43 51.43
Harvesting 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57 68.57
Expenses (Php) 677.71 692.00 711.00 741.00 752.00 801.00 832.00
Net/ loss 2,547 2,508 2,589 2,884 2,798 3,549 3,845
ROI% 376.00 362.00 364.00 389.00 372.00 443.00 462.00
Note: The selling price per kilo was Php 100.00
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted from December 2009 to January 2010 at Balili
Experiment Area, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet to evaluate the growth
and yield of romaine lettuce applied with different rates of plantmate organic fertilizer;
determine the best rate of plantmate application to romaine lettuce, and the profitability
using the various rates.
There were no significant differences on the growth and yield of romaine lettuce
applied with the different rates of plantamte organic fertilizer, thus, This study did not
determine the best rate with the fertility level that the experiment area used in the study.
However, there was an increasing yield as the rate of plantmate was increased. The cost
and return analysis show that the 60 grams plantmate per hill obtained the highest ROI of
462.0% or Php 4.62 return for every peso spent in the production followed by 50 grams
with an ROI of 443.0% while the lowest of 10 grams per hill had the Lowest ROI of
362.0%.
Conclusion
Based on the result presented and discussed, the application of plantmate organic
fertilizer to a soil with 6.6 pH, 126 ppm phosphorous, 366 ppm potassium and 2%
organic matter content can not show significant differences in growth and yield of
romaine lettuce applied with varying rates from 0 to 60 grams per hill.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
23
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended, that with the soil fertility level of 2% organic matter
content, 126 ppm phosphorus, 366 ppm potassium and with soil pH of 6.6, romaine
lettuce may not need the application of plantmate organic fertilizer. However, when the
grower want to obtain higher return on investment, the application of 50 to 60 grams per
hill or 5 to 6 kilos of plantmate per 1m x 5m plot with 100 romaine lettuce plant density
is still economically beneficial when the selling price per kilo is Php 100.00 as in the
study.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
24
LITERATURE CITED
ABADILLA, D. C. 1982. Organic Farming. Afa Publications Ins. Quezon City. pp.81-
100.
ABALOS, J. 2004. Observation tour at Bulakan. Batagakan Newsletter. 2(2):8-9
BRADY, N. C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 8th Edition. New York. Mac
Millan PublishingCo. Inc. pp.685.
CADIZ, T. G. AND H. B. AYCARDO. 1977 Multi Cropping with Vegetable
Production.IN; Vegetable Production. UPLB, College of Agriculture, Laguna p.
194-200.
COOKE, G. W. 1982. Fertilizer for Maximum Yield. 3rd Edition. London, Pp.465.
ENSMINGER, A. H. ENSMIGER and M. J. K. ENSMIGER. 1986. Food Health
Nutrition Encyclopedia. California: Pegus Press, p.198.
GROMAN, J. 1997. The World Book Encyclopedia. London. World book Inc. (2) 94/95
MCCOLLUM, P. J. 1942. The American Encyclopedia. p.258
SABAS, L. E. 2002. Handbook on Zero-waste Technology. Recycling Movement of the
Phillipines, Inc. p.26.
TIED JEAMS, X. A. 1964. Collier’s Encyclopedia. The Crowell Collier Publication, Co.
4:523
WALLACE, D. H. 1975. Genetics, environmental and plant response. In Vegetable
Training Manual Villareal/CR.L. and D.H. Wallace ed. UPLB. College, Los
Banos Laguna. p.20.
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
25
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Number of days from transplanting to harvesting
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 48 48 48 144 48
T2 48 48 48 144 48
T3 48 48 48 144 48
T4 48 48 48 144 48
T5 48 48 48 144
48
T6 48 48 48 144
48
T7 48 48 48 144
48
TOTAL 336 336 336 1008 336
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0 0
Treatment 6 0 0 0ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 0 0
TOTAL 20 0
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 0%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
26
Appendix Table 2. Plant height at harvest
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 20.34 21.48 20.32 62.18 20.73
T2 20.48 22.18 21.20 63.86 21.29
T3 20.19 21.55 21.31 63.05 21.02
T4 21.11 21.48 20.91 63.20 21.17
T5 21.61 21.28 20.81 63.70 21.23
T6 21.53 20.38 21.85 63.76 21.25
T7 2.48 20.58 23.00 65.06 21.69
TOTAL 146.74 148.93 149.40 445.11 149.38
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.520 0.260
Treatment 6 1.581 0.264 0.41ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 7.679 0.640
TOTAL 20 7.02
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 3.78%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
27
Appendix Table 3. Weight of marketable yield
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 6.75 9.00 4.00 19.75 6.58
T2 7.75 8.25 4.25 20.25 6.75
T3 7.00 8.50 6.00 21.50 7.17
T4 8.25 7.75 9.00 25.00 8.33
T5 8.00 7.25 8.50 23.75 7.92
T6 7.75 8.25 12.25 28.25 9.42
T7 8.25 6.75 17.25 32.25 10.75
TOTAL 53.75 55.75 61.25 170.75 56.92
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 4.310 2.155
Treatment 6 41.494 6.916 0.84ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 99.149 8.262
TOTAL 20 144.952
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 35.35%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
28
Appendix Table 4. Weight of non-marketable yield
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 5.00 4.25 3.25 12.50 4.17
T2 6.00 3.25 2.50 11.75 3.92
T3 5.00 2.50 4.00 11.50 3.83
T4 4.50 2.75 4.00 11.25 3.75
T5 4.25 1.50 6.00 11.75 3.92
T6 5.50 3.00 6.75 15.25 5.08
T7 5.75 2.75 6.00 14.50 4.48
TOTAL 36.00 20.00 32.50 88.50 29.50
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 20.214 10.107
Treatment 6 5.036 0.839 0.59ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 17.036 1.420
TOTAL 20 42.286
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 28.27%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
29
Appendix Table 5. Total yield
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 11.75 13.25 7.25 32.25 10.75
T2 13.75 11.00 6.75 32.00 10.67
T3 12.00 11.00 10.00 33.00 11.00
T4 12.75 10.50 13.00 36.25 12.08
T5 12.25 8.75 14.50 35.50 11.83
T6 13.25 11.25 19.00 43.50 14.50
T7 14.00 9.50 23.25 46.75 15.58
TOTAL 89.75 75.75 93.75 259.25 86.41
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 25.524 12.762
Treatment 6 67.893 11.315 0.79ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 172.768 14.387
TOTAL 20 266.185
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 30.74%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
30
Appendix Table 6. Weight of individual plants
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 130 144 80 354 118.00
T2 146 120 77 343 114.33
T3 129 121 107 357 119.00
T4 138 118 140 396 132.00
T5 129 102 153 384 128.00
T6 139 117 198 454 151.33
T7 146 109 235 490 163.33
TOTAL 957.00 831.00 990.00 2778.00 925.99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2011.714 1005.857
Treatment 6 6144.286 1024.048 0.75ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 16424.286 1368.690
TOTAL 20 24580.286
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 27.97%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
31
Appendix Table 7. Computed yield per hectar
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 23.50 27.50 14.50 65.50 21.83
T2 27.50 23.00 13.50 64.00 21.33
T3 24.00 22.00 20.00 66.00 22.00
T4 25.50 21.00 26.00 72.50 24.17
T5 24.50 17.50 29.00 11.00 23.67
T6 27.50 22.50 38.00 88.00 29.33
T7 28.00 19.00 46.50 93.50 31.17
TOTAL 180.00 152.50 187.50 520.00 173.50
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARE SQUARE F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 98.00 49.000
Treatment 6 274.286 45.714 0.78ns 3.00 4.82
Error 12 701.500 58.458
TOTAL 20 1073.786
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 30.85%
Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce ‘Xanadu’ Base-dressed with Varying Rates of
Plantmate Organic Fertilizers / Jerry B. Puyao. 2010
Document Outline
- Growth and Yield of Romaine Lettuce �Xanadu�Base-dressed with Varying Rates of Plantmate Organic Fertilizers
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Description of the Crop
- Pharmacological Importance andNutritional Value
- Soil and Climate Adaptation
- Importance of Organic Fertilizer
- Effects of Organic Fertilizer
- Plantmate Organic Fertilizers
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Number of Days from Transplanting to Harvest
- Plant Height at Harvest
- Weight of Marketable Yield
- Weight of Non-marketable Yield
- Total Yield
- Weight of Individual Plants
- Computed Yield per Hectare
- Cost and Return Analysis
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- Summary
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES