BIBLIOGRAPHY CABADING, MELVER S. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CABADING, MELVER S. APRIL 2010. Yield and Profitability of Chinese
Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce in Three Successive Croppings. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Silvestre L. Kudan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted in greenhouse condition at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet
from October 2009 to march 2010 to evaluate the yield of Chinese spinach, spoon
cabbage, and romaine lettuce in a three successive planting, to asses auto toxicity among
the three crops and to determine the profitability of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and
romaine lettuce after the three successive cropping.
The succession of spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine lettuce produced high yield
that obtained 344% return on investment or Php 3.44 for every peso invested in the
production. But did not differ from romaine lettuce or spoon cabbage successively
planted three times on the same plot that obtained 365% ROI and 226% ROI
respectively. Meanwhile, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage and spinach-romaine
lettuce-spoon cabbage succession croppings obtained 269% ROI and 226% ROI which
showed slight difference in yield compared to either romaine lettuce or spoon cabbage in
three successive croppings. On the other hand, spinach planted successively planted three
times on the same plot obtained 208% ROI or Php 2.08 for every peso invested in the
production.
Spoon cabbage seeds watered with romaine lettuce, spinach and spoon cabbage
compost tea had similar germination percentage with the control (water) which did not
also differ from romaine lettuce irrigated with spinach compost tea. Romaine lettuce
seeds watered with spoon cabbage compost tea had the lowest germination percentage
which was similar to romaine lettuce seeds watered with romaine lettuce compost tea,
and the spinach seeds watered with compost tea of romaine lettuce, spinach and spoon
cabbage. This controlled germination study supports the tremendous reduction in growth
and yield of spinach successively planted three times.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Description of the Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Soil and Climatic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4
Importance of the Crops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Succession Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height at Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Weight of Marketable Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Weight of Non-Marketable Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Weight of Individual Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Number of Leaves per Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Total Yield from the Succession
Croppings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Germination Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iii
Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iv
1
INTRODUCTION
Succession cropping refers to the planting of a crop one after another on the same
piece of land. The main objective is to optimize the use of land for better productivity.
Philippine is an agricultural country but at this time, land availability of crop
production is getting smaller. In order to increase profit from crop production, proper
cropping systems, intensified use of land and efficient labor management become a
matter of necessity. Relatively, majority of the people in the Cordillera are engaged in
vegetable production but there is a limited area for expansion.
Recent studies showed that the profitability of crop production is determined by
cropping system employed by the farmers. Although, these systems are influence by
several factors such as environmental, biological, some old practices like relay cropping
or succession cropping are common to most farmers. However, such practices are usually
done regardless of the compatibilities of the crops being planted.
Succession planting is common in rain fed rice lands where vegetables are grown
as second crop and in the farms growing selected high value crops such as tomatoes,
cucumber, melons and beans. Planting may be done every month or every 2-4 months
depending on the crops and the varieties used.
Many farmers nowadays, succession cropping is common to them but there are
some problems in the plants planted after the first crop. This is because there are some
plants that are not compatible when it is successively planted. This study will help the
farmers select crop that are compatible to increase productivity. This will not benefit the
farmers only but also extension workers, researchers and the following generation who
will be involved in vegetable production.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
2
The objectives of the study were:
1. to evaluate the yield of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in
a three successive planting.
2. to assess auto toxicity among the three crops.
3. to determine the profitability of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine
lettuce after the three successive cropping.
This study was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2009 to
March 2010.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crops
Romaine. According to Groman (1997), there are three main kinds of lettuce: (1)
head, (2) leaf, and (3) romaine. Head lettuce has leaves that curl around the center of the
plant forming a ball-shaped head. Crisp head lettuce or ice berg lettuce has tight head and
brittle, juicy leaves. Leaf lettuce forms dense, leafy dumps instead of head. Gardeners
grow more of it than any kind. Most leaf lettuce has a 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 shape among the various type of leaf lettuce.
On the other hand, romaine lettuce grows long and upright and its leaves are inward.
Romaine lettuce is most nutritious among the lettuce crops.
Chinese spinach. Spinach (Spinacia oleracea), as stated by Lorenz (1994), is
annual herb that belongs to the goosefoot family(Chenopdiaceae), which is grown for its
nutritious green leaves and is extensively cultivated throughout the world. Spinach is
considered to be native to Southwestern Asia. It was introduce to Europe during the
Middle Ages. Price (1991) mentioned that it was a special dish in Europe. The Persians
used it as medicine.
There are four main type of spinach: savoy, semi-savoy, flat-leaf, and baby
spinach. Savoy spinach has crinky, dark green and curly leave. Flat-leaf/ smooth-leaf
spinach is uncrinkled and have spade-shaped leaves that are easier to clean than the curly
types. Semi-savoy is a combination of savoy and flat-leaf. Baby spinach is a flat-leaf
variety and usually longer than three inches. It is often used in salads, but can also be
lightly cooked (Lumioan, 2006).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
4
Spoon cabbage. One of the leafy vegetables that provide nutrition to human is
spoon cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.). Common variations for spoon cabbage include
Bok-Choy, Pakchoi, Taisai, celery mustard and Chinese mustard. In addition, spoon
cabbage is botanically turnip. Unlike Chinese cabbage, it has thick glossy leaves and does
not form a true head. It is a small fast growing rosette-shaped, often upright (similar to
celery) crisp stemmed, annual with cup-shaped tender leaves.
Bok-Choy or spoon cabbage is an Asian vegetable which is being cultivated in
China since fifty century and member of the cabbage family. The smooth, wide stalks are
crunchy like celery, although they do not have string fibers and the long full leaves are
dark and consumed raw with dip or chopped and included in salads. Bok-Choy has high
water content and becomes limp very quickly upon cooking. It should be cooked very
quickly over high temperature so that the leaves become tender and stalks stay crisp.
Bok-Choy grows well with the flavor of soy sauce, hot pepper and toasted sesame oil.
Bok-Choy has a long, crisp, white meaty stalk that supports its dark green leaves. Stalks
should be firm, have fresh cooking leaves and range from 12-16 inches in length. Bok-
Choy’s mild flavor similar to cabbage and texture is tender-crisp.
Soil and Climatic Requirements
Chinese spinach. Spinach does not grow well unless it has an abundance of
moisture. It should be therefore planted in moist soil at a time when rainfall is abundant
or where artificial watering can be given. In wet seasons and cold weather ,it makes a
luxuriant growth of almost perfect foliage, but when the weather is hot and dry, it is not
only stunted by the unfavorable weather conditions but also seems more subject to insect
attacks. It is thus almost impossible to produce good spinach when the weather is hot and
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
5
dry (Lloyd, 1935). This crop matures within 6-10 weeks depending on climatic
conditions. A pH of 5.6 is favorable3 for spinach production (McColumn and Ware,
1975).
Romaine. According to McColumn (1942), lettuce can be grown in a wise variety
of soil, including muck and sandy or silty loam. Lettuce prefers a moist but well-drained
soil type, rich in organic matter, sandy loam or loam with pH ranging from 6.5-7.5.
Temperate requirements, Groman (1997) wrote that most kinds of commercial
lettuce grow well at 21-24 oC. In contrast, Wallace (1969) mentioned that the optimum
(high) temperature for lettuce is 10 to 15 oC with a day temperature of 15-20 oC. Seeds
germinate in 6 to 10 days and can be directly planted.
Spoon cabbage. Spoon cabbage is a cool season crop. Temperature ranging from
15 to 20 oF is favorable to its growth. However, spoon cabbage with temperature of 75 oF
can cause trip burn prolonged temperature 55 oF can initiate flowering and premature
bolting (McDonald, 1993). Furthermore, the same author stated that spoon cabbage
grows well in a well-drained soil with good water retention. In Arizona, spoon cabbage
grows in sandy loam to clay loam soil with a pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.0. It is also being
grown in the fall and winter. From time of weeding, spoon cabbage requires 40 to 80
days to reach maturity. In addition, spoon cabbage flowering is photoperiod sensitive
where in long days include flowering while short day promote vegetative growth.
Importance of the Crops
Chinese spinach. As food, spinach began a medicine used for its mildly laxative
effects, likely because of the oxalic acid. The oxalic acid binds calcium into an insoluble
salt (Calcium oxalate), which cannot be absorbed by the body. Spinach has extraordinary
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
6
vitamin C content and rich in riboflavin. It also contains a very high level of vitamin A,
folate, magnesium, potassium, as well as vitamin E, B6 and Thiamine. Despite of its
unusual iron and calcium content, it is rich in other important minerals, proteins, and
vitamins. Of all the vegetable juices, spinach juice is most the potent for the prevention of
cancer cell formation. Research has shown that those who eat spinach daily are not likely
to develop lung cancer (Lumioan, 2006).
Romaine. Ensminger et al. (1986) said that romaine lettuce is guaranteed to be
packed with nutrients. The vitamin and minerals found in romaine lettuce are especially
good for alleviation or prevention of many health complaints due to its extremely low
calorie amount and high water volume. Romaine lettuce while often over-cooked in the
nutrition world is actually a very nutritive food based on its nutrient density. The ranking
system qualified. It is source of vitamin A and C and folute manganese. Good source of
dietary fibers. The fiber adds another plus in its collism of heart healthy effects. Folic
acid (vitamin B), is needed by the body to covert a damaging chemical called
“homocytene” into another benign substances. In addition romaine lettuce is a very good
source of potassium, which is in lowering high blood pressure.
Spoon cabbage. Spoon cabbage is one of the most important leafy vegetables
produced and eaten in all parts of the world. It is a crop commercially grown in the
highland areas particularly Benguet and some parts of Mountain Province and considered
as a source of income for the people. Spoon cabbage can provide nutrition to humans
since it contains 14 calories of food energy, 1.0 protein, 2.37 grams carbohydrates, 0.18
grams total fat, and 0.84 grams fiber (Kinoshita, 1972).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
7
Succession Cropping
Earlier, Thatcher (1923) stated that in succession cropping, the first crops affect
the yield of the following crops either beneficial or deleterious. Moreover, Sabbarth
(1970) stated that a plant may enhance the growth and yield of another by adding
nutrients to the soil.
Relatively, Delorit (1959) stated that a well-planned crop rotation conserves,
improves and increases the productivity of the soil rather than depleting the fertility over
a period of time.
Furthermore, Cevallos (1933) stated that planting of different crops in succession
cropping on a piece of land merely prevent the exhaustion of any particular plant food
from the soil. He also indicated that when successive crops of one kind grown on the
same area, those elements which are more consumed become exhausted; hence the land
becomes weak and sticky.
A reduction in both crop yield and quality often occurs when the same crops or its
related species are cultivated on the same soil successively. This phenomenon is called
soil sickness. It is a complicated natural phenomenon and the causes are not fully known.
Various factors such as the buildup of pests in the soil, disorder in physico-chemical
properties of the soil, auto toxicity (special kind of allelopathy) and other unknown
factors are believed to be involved in soil sickness (Narwal, 1999).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in the study were spinach seeds, romaine lettuce seeds, spoon
cabbage seeds, watering cans and organic fertilizers (such as compost), garden
equipment, peg, weighing scale and record book.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experimental layout followed the
Randomized Complete Block Design ( RCBD) with 3 replications.
The treatments were as follows:
Code
Description
C1 =
Spinach- Spinach- Spinach
C2 =
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
C3 =
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
C4 =
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
C5 =
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
C6 =
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
Land preparation. Eighteen plots measuring 1m x 5m were prepared for the study.
The plots were applied with compost mixtures of grasses, animal manures, and sunflower
as base dress. No synthetic fertilizer was used as the greenhouse area is under organic
system of production.
Seedling production. Seeds of romaine lettuce were sown in a seedling trays
filled with sterilized soil media. The seedlings were transplanted 3 weeks from
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
9
emergence. On the other hand, spoon cabbage and Chinese spinach seeds were planted
directly to their assigned plots.
Crop maintenance. Irrigation was done after planting and was done twice a week
up to harvesting. Weeds were uprooted as they emerged on the plots in order not to
compete with the crops. There were larvae of insects, but they were collected and
crushed. All other cultural practices in growing the crops to ensure optimum growth and
yield were done.
Harvesting. The crops were harvested when they reach 30 to 35 days after
planting. The produced were packed and sold to the BSU organic market and to the
LaTOP stall in the La Trinidad public market.
Figure 1 shows a documentation during the planting time, irrigation and data
gathering.
Data Gathered
The data gathered, tabulated, and subjected to mean separation test using
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test ( DMRT) were:
1. Plant height at harvest (cm). Ten sample plants from each plot were selected at
random and measured during harvest from the base of the leaf petioles to the tip of the
longest leaf.
2. Total yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of marketable and non-
marketable plant harvested from each treatment plot.
3. Weight of marketable plants (kg). This was the weight of plants from each
treatment plot without defect which were sold in the market.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
10
a
b
c
Figure 1. Photographs during the planting time (a), irrigation of
the crops (b) and during harvest to gather yield data (c).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
11
4. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg). This was the weight of plants with
defect such as stunted, rotten; insect-damaged that were not be sold in the market.
5. Weight of individual plants (g). The weight of ten plants picked at random from
each treatment plot was divided by 10 to get the weight of each plant.
6. Number of leaves per plant. This was obtained from ten plants per plot by
counting the number of leaves then divided by 10 to get the number of leaves per plant.
7. Germination percentage (%). One hundred seeds from each test crop were sown
in a seedling trays replicated three times and the water where the plants were soaked for
two weeks was utilized for irrigating the seedling trays.
8. Return on investment (ROI). This was taken by using the formula:
ROI (%) = Gross sales- Total Expenses per Plot x 100
Total Expenses per Plot
9. Documentation through photographs. Observations that cannot be measured
like color of leaves was recorded in a photograph during the gathering of data. Figure 2
shows the different succession crops planted.
10. Other observations.
a. Occurrence of insect pests and diseases- Insect pests and diseases
attacking the crops during the cropping period was recorded and identified.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
12
a
b
c
Figure 2. The different succession crops planted: (a) spinach, (b) spoon
cabbage, and (c) romaine lettuce.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height at Harvest
Presented in Table 1 is the final height of crops at harvest. Statistically, spinach
significantly surpassed spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in height. However, this
difference in height may not be due to the succession cropping but a crop characteristic.
In the succession of crops planted on the plots, there were reduction in height of plants
but this might be due to the insufficient irrigation water during the succession cropping.
There was also severe infestation of flea beetles and mole crickets during the second and
third croppings especially flea beetles which were prevalent during dry season.
Weight of Marketable Plants
As presented in Table 2, there were slight differences among the spinach, romaine
lettuce and spoon cabbage from the first cropping. During the second cropping, romaine
Table 1. Plant height at harvest
TREATMENT
HEIGHT (cm)
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
34.60a
32.83a
29.57a
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
22.43b
19.40b
19.47c
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
23.23b
20.33b
20.30c
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
34.37a
21.70b
19.47c
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
23.80b 32.03a
20.03c
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
23.37b 32.53a
22.90b
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
14
lettuce had significantly higher marketable plants compared to spinach and spoon
cabbage in the succession. This result is due to the nature of spinach which are naturally
slender and light and the building auto-toxicity shown in reduced germination (Table 7)
in addition to severe infestation of flea beetle that affected the growth of spoon cabbage.
On the third succession crops, romaine lettuce had significantly heavier yield
while spoon cabbage reduced in weight of marketable plants particularly the spinach
where the weight decreased from the second to third croppings. This might indicate that
planting spinach on the same plot for more than twice has allelophatic interaction effect
as shown by the stunted plants (Figure 3) and the controlled germination percentage
(Table 7).
Table 2. Weight of marketable plants
TREATMENTS
WEIGHT (kg)
1st
2nd
3rd
Crop
Crop Crop
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
6.25b
5.42b
3.42c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
15.33a
5.50b
7.00b
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
11.08ab 7.75a
11.50a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
6.08b
9.08a
7.67b
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
11.00ab 4.33b
7.67b
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
13.00a
4.03b
11.17a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
15
Figure 3. Overview of the experimental area inside the greenhouse showing the
stunted growth of spinach (polonsai) and low percentage of survival.
Weight of Non-Marketable Plants
There were no significant differences among the croppings on the non-marketable
plants during the first and second cropping (Table 3). Except the romaine lettuce that had
significantly higher non-marketable plants in the third cropping, the rest of the cropping
systems had lesser non-marketable plants than the first and second cropping. The higher
weight of non-marketable plants in romaine lettuce was due to infestation of insect and
rotting as the plants were not sprayed with pesticide. Although, the non-marketable plant
were just in grams, the significant differences among the succession croppings might
reflect the allelophatic interaction effect.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
16
Table 3. Weight of non-marketable plants
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (kg)
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
0.17a
0.08a
0.17c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
0.28a
0.15a
0.09d
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
0.23a
0.13a
0.35a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
0.19a
0.15a
0.08d
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
0.30a
0.17a
0.09d
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
0.30a
0.14a
0.20b
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Individual Plant
Table 4 shows the weight of individual plant obtained from the three succession
crops evaluated. Romaine lettuce and spoon cabbage were significantly heavier than
spinach which is obviously a crop characteristic. Although romaine lettuce and spoon
cabbage have similar weight of individual plant during the first cropping, spoon cabbage
was outweighed by romaine lettuce during the second and third cropping due maybe to
allelophaty and the severe flea beetle infestation. Besides, the third cropping which was
replanted twice and was harvested earlier to catch up with the deadline of thesis defense.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
17
Table 4. Weight of individual plant
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (g)
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
75.17b 60.03b 57.00c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
162.00a 84.00b 79.00b
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
190.67a 163.17a 154.00a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
68.50b 165.00a 72.73b
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
177.83a 53.50b 78.33b
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
160.17a 45.17b 156.17a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Number of Leaves per Plant
As presented in Table 5, romaine lettuce has significantly more leaves compared
to spoon cabbage and spinach which is observed to be crop characteristic differences and
not being affected by the successive cropping. The leaf counts in spinach at harvest is
similar in the study of Dulatre (2008) while spoon cabbage was the same with the study
of Dayao (2008) and Pingalo (2008).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
18
Table 5. Number of leaves per plant
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF LEAVES
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
13.87b 13.10b 13.83b
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
11.93b 11.83b 10.20c
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
21.53a
20.20a 21.20a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
14.27b 20.23a 10.10c
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
21.13a
14.47b 10.40c
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
11.30b 14.17b 19.80a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Total Yield from the Succession Croppings
As presented in Table 6, the succession of spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine lettuce
did not differ from romaine lettuce or spoon cabbage successively planted three times on
the same plots which produced significantly higher yield compared to planting spinach
three times successively. Meanwhile, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage and yield
compared to either romaine or spoon cabbage in three successive croppings.
Obviously, the height and weight of spinach was reduced particularly on the third
cropping which may imply that there is bad effect of planting spinach continuously on the
same plot. Narwal (1999) reported that various factors such as the buildup of pests in the
soil, disorder in physico-chemical properties of the soil, auto-toxicity (special kind of
allelopathy) and other unknown factors are believed to be involved in soil sickness.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
19
Table 6. Total yield from the succession croppings of spinach, spoon cabbage and
romaine lettuce
TREATMENT
TOTAL YIELD (kg)
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
15.52c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
29.47ab
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
29.83ab
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
23.26b
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
23.76b
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
31.84a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Germination Percentage
As presented in Table 7, spoon cabbage seeds watered with romaine lettuce,
spinach and spoon cabbage compost tea had similar germination percentage with the
control (water) which did not also differ from romaine lettuce irrigated with spinach
compost tea. Romaine lettuce seeds watered with spoon cabbage compost tea had the
lowest germination percentage which was similar to romaine lettuce seeds watered with
romaine lettuce compost tea, and the spinach seeds watered with compost tea of romaine
lettuce, spinach and spoon cabbage. This controlled germination study supports the
tremendous reduction in growth and yield of spinach successively planted three times.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
20
Table 7.Germination percentage (%) from spinach, romaine lettuce and spoon cabbage
seeds watered by its compost tea under controlled experiment
TREATMENT
PERCENTAGE
(%)
Spinach-Spinach 75.00de
Spinach-Spoon cabbage 78.00cde
Spinach-Romaine lettuce 74.00de
Spinach-water 82.67bcd
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce 77.00de
Romaine lettuce-Spinach 84.00bcd
Romaine lettuce- Spoon cabbage 70.33e
Romaine lettuce-water 84.00bcd
Spoon cabbage- Spoon cabbage 88.00abc
Spoon cabbage-Spinach 90.00ab
Spoon cabbage-Romaine lettuce 95.00a
Spoon cabbage-water 91.33ab
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Return on Investment
Table 8 shows the profitability of spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in
succession croppings. The three successive croppings of romaine lettuce obtained the
highest net income with 365% ROI or Php 3.65 for every peso invested in the production.
In descending order, this was followed by the spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine lettuce
successions, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage succession, spinach-romaine lettuce-
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
21
spoon cabbage, spoon cabbage-spoon cabbage-spoon cabbage and spinach-spinach-
spinach on the same plot.
Table 8. Return on investments
TREATMENT
ITEMS
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Marketable Yield(kg) 45.05 86.00 91.00 68.00 69.00 93.60
A.Sales(Php) 4525.00 5160.00 9100.00 5930.00 5980.00 7430.00
B.Expenses(Php)
Inputs
1. Seeds 35.65 54.45 58.95 49.68 49.68 49.68
2. Compost 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00
3. Packing materials 200.00 299.00 400.00 251.00 253.00 306.00
Labor costs
4. Land preparation 58.74 58.74 58.74 58.74 58.74 58.74
5. Sowing - - 264.39 88.13 88.13 88.13
6. Planting 117.51 117.51 117.51 117.51 117.51 117.51
7. Irrigation 220.32 220.32 220.32 220.32 220.32 220.32
8. Harvesting 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00
9. Land rent 149.85 149.85 149.85 149.85 149.85 149.85
10. Depreciation 180.06 180.06 180.06 180.06 180.06 180.06
cost
Total Expenses(Php) 1467.00 1585.00 1955.00 1620.00 1622.00 1675.00
Net Profit (Php) 3058.00 3575.00 7145.00 4310.00 4358.00 5755.00
ROI(%) 208 226 365 266 269 344
Rank 6 5 1 4 3 2
Note: The selling price of spinach during harvest was Php 100.00 per kilo, spoon cabbage
was Php 60.00 per kilo and romaine lettuce was sold at Php 100.00/kg.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
22
Other Observations.
The severe infestation of flea beetles on the spoon cabbage especially the third
cropping resulted to replanting the treatment plots twice. This was due to the observation
that the period (dry season) coincide to the prevalence of flea beetles. Mole cricket, on
the other hand, surfaced and bulldozed the plots when irrigated destroying the emerging
seedlings. On romaine lettuce, insect damaged the inside leaves and at the same time, soft
rot was observed. Soft rot was also observed in spoon cabbage.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
23
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted at Balili area from October 2009 to March 2010 to
evaluate the yield of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage, and romaine lettuce in a three
successive planting, to asses auto toxicity among the three crops and to determine the
profitability of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in the three
succession croppings.
Results in the study show that romaine lettuce successively planted three times
had obtained high marketable yield, heavier weight of individual plant, highest number of
leaves counted resulting to heavier total yield. Spinach significantly surpassed spoon
cabbage and romaine lettuce in height, but slightly reduced in height during the second
and third cropping which also decreased in marketable yield during the second and third
cropping that resulted to lowest total yield clearly indicating that planting spinach on the
same plot more than twice has allelophatic interaction effect. Spoon cabbage seeds
watered with spinach and spoon cabbage compost tea had the highest germination
percentage compared to the romaine lettuce watered by the spoon cabbage tea. However,
on the second and third cropping, there was prevalence of flea beetles that attacked the
plant resulting to low marketable yield.
The economic analysis shows that romaine lettuce successively planted three
times obtained the highest net income with 365% return on investment or Php 3.65 for
every peso invested in the production followed by spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine
lettuce croppings, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage, spinach-romaine lettuce-spoon
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
24
cabbage, spoon cabbage- spoon cabbage- spoon cabbage and the three cropping of
spinach on the same plot.
Conclusions
Based on the results, it is inferred that planting romaine lettuce successively for
three times have high yield and return on investment and there was no marked
allelophatic interaction effects while planting spinach successively on the same plot
results to poor growth and yield resulting to low ROI.
Recommendations
It is therefore recommended, that romaine lettuce can be planted for three times
on the same plot to obtain higher yield and higher profit and to avoid planting spinach on
the same plot in succession.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
25
LITERATURE CITED
CEVALLOS, F. O. 1933. Tropical Horticulture. Oriental Commercial Co., Inc. Phil. P.
92.
DAYAO, N. A. 2008. Growth and Yield Response of Spoon Cabbage (Brassica
chinensis L.) to Time of lquid Bio-Fertilizer application. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La
Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-38
DELORIT, R. D. 1959. Crop Production. Engelwood, New Jersey; Printice Hall, Inc. 2nd
Ed. P. 606.
DULATRE, V. B. 2008. Growth and Yield Performance of Chinese spinach ‘Dynasty’
Applied with compost tea of organic materials. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 1-27.
ENSMINGER, A. H., H. ESMINGER and M. J. K ENSMINGER. 1986. Food for health
Nutritional Encyl. California: Tata McGrawhill Publ., Co. P. 194.
GROMAN, J. 1997. The World Book Encyclopeadia. London: World Book Inc. 12: 194-
195.
KINOSHITA, K. 1972. Vegetable Production on Sub- tropics. Tokyo, Japan: Lippincott,
Inc. Pp. 146-148.
LLOYD, J. W. 1935. Cool Season Crops: Productive Vegetable Growing: New York:
Lippincott Book Co. Pp. 225-256.
LORENZ, O. A. 1994. Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia. Lexicon Publications, Inc. New
York. 18: 184.
LUMIOAN, N. C. 2006. Response of Spinach(Spinacia oleracae L.) to different fertilizer
rates. BS Thesis BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 3-4.
McCOLUMN, J. P. 1942. Producing Crops. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publ., Inc. P. 384.
McCOLUMN and WARE. 1975. Vegetable Crop Production: Producing Vegetable
Crops. New York: The McMillan Co. Pp. 437-445.
McDONALD, F. 1993. The American Horticultural Society. Encyclopedia of Gardening.
USA: Dorling Kindersley Inc. Pp. 320.
NARWAL, S. S. 1999. Allelopathy Update. Basic and Applied Aspects. Science
Publishers. Inc. USA. P. 156.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
26
PINGALO, A. V. 2008. Yield and Profitability of Pak choi ‘Chorokee’ Applied with
Foliar Fertilizer. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.1-40.
PRICE, H. C. 1991. The World Book Encyclopedia. World Book Inc. London. 18:792.
SABARTH, E. 1970. Plant Symbiosis; Biodynamics. Winter. Pp. 13-30.
THATCHER, R. W. 1923. The effect of one crop on another. Journal of American
Science of Agronomy. 15(8): 331-337.
WALLACE, D. H. 1969. Genetics, environment and Plant response. In Vegetable
Training Manual (R. L.Villareal and D. H. Wallace ed.) UPLB, College, Los
Baños, Laguna. P. 20.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
27
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Plant height at harvest (cm), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
30.40
36.40
37.00
103.8
34.60
T2
23.40
21.60
22.30
67.30
22.43
T3
22.90
22.40
24.40
69.70
23.23
T4
37.50
36.20
31.20
103.1
34.27
T5
23.00
24.30
24.10
71.40
23.80
T6
22.80
23.60
23.70
70.10
23.37
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
3.510
1.755
Treatments
5
511.513
102.303
23.4765**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
43.577
4.358
Total
17
558.600
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation 7.74 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
28
Appendix Table 2. Plant height at harvest (cm), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
32.10
35.30
31.10
98.50
32.83
T2
20.30
20.30
17.60
58.20
19.40
T3
20.90
19.80
20.30
61.00
20.33
T4
22.00
19.80
23.30
65.10
21.70
T5
30.50
34.10
31.50
96.10
32.03
T6
32.70
34.70
30.2
97.60
32.53
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
8.361
4.181
Treatments
5
655.809
131.162
43.6253**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
30.066
3.007
Total
17
694.236
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 5.55 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
29
Appendix Table 3. Plant height at harvest (cm), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
30.20
30.80
27.70
88.70
29.57
T2
19.40
19.10
19.90
58.40
19.47
T3
19.90
21.10
19.90
60.90
20.30
T4
19.20
19.60
19.60
58.40
19.47
T5
20.30
20.10
19.70
60.10
20.03
T6
24.50
21.10
23.10
68.70
22.90
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
1.081
0.541
Treatments
5
232.938
46.488
39.6640**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
11.746
1.175
Total
17
254.7764
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 4.94 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
30
Appendix Table 4. Weight of marketable plants (kg), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
3.25
6.25
9.25
18.75
6.25
T2
18.50
11.00
16.50
46.00
15.33
T3
11.00
11.25
11.00
33.25
11.08
T4
7.75
7.25
3.25
18.25
6.08
T5
10.50
11.25
11.25
33.00
11.00
T6
19.00
12.50
16.50
48.00
16.00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
6.438
3.219
Treatments
5
203.281
40.656
5.3627*
3.33 5.64
Error
10
75.813
7.581
Total
17
285.531
* = significant Coefficient of variation = 26.33 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
31
Appendix Table 5. Weight of marketable plants (kg), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
4.00
5.50
6.75
16.25
5.42
T2
6.50
8.00
5.00
19.50
6.50
T3
8.75
8.25
6.25
23.25
7.75
T4
9.50
8.75
9.00
27.25
9.08
T5
3.25
5.50
4.25
13.00
4.33
T6
3.60
4.75
3.75
12.10
4.03
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.697
0.348
Treatments
5
59.409
11.882
10.1470**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
11.710
1.171
Total
17
71.816
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 17.98 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
32
Appendix Table 6. Weight of marketable plants (kg), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
5.25
4.00
1.00
10.25
3.42
T2
6.50
5.00
9.50
20.50
6.83
T3
10.00
13.50
11.00
34.50
11.50
T4
8.00
8.00
7.00
23.00
7.67
T5
8.00
8.00
11.00
23.00
7.67
T6
12.5
11.25
9.75
33.50
11.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
2.528
1.264
Treatments
5
133.434
26.687
9.1585**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
29.139
2.914
Total
17
165.101
** = significant Coefficient of variation = 21.15 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
33
Appendix Table 7. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.50
0.17
T2
0.19
0.15
0.50
0.84
0.28
T3
0.60
0.55
0.45
1.60
0.53
T4
0.15
0.18
0.25
0.58
0.19
T5
1.00
0.65
0.15
1.65
0.55
T6
0.25
0.20
0.45
0.90
0.30
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.018
0.009
Treatments
5
0.485
0.097
2.04ns
3.33 5.64
Error
10
0.474
0.047
Total
17
0.977
ns = Not significant Coefficient of variation = 33.02 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
34
Appendix Table 8. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.08
T2
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.45
0.15
T3
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.38
0.13
T4
0.23
0.12
0.10
0.45
0.15
T5
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.26
0.09
T6
0.12
0.10
0.20
0.42
0.14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.115
0.058
Treatments
5
0.374
0.035
2.23ns
3.33 5.64
Error
10
0.469
0.047
Total
17
0.911
ns = Not significant Coefficient of variation = 25.39 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
35
Appendix Table 9. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.52
0.17
T2
0.10
0.10
0.08
1.00
0.33
T3
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.66
0.22
T4
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.24
0.08
T5
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.25
0.09
T6
0.22
0.18
0.19
0.59
0.20
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.002
0.001
Treatments
5
0.058
0.012
38.2308**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
0.003
0.000
Total
17
0.063
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 12.29 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
36
Appendix Table 10. Weight of individual plant (g), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
66.00
72,00
87.50
225.50
75.17
T2
181.51
133.00
171.50
486.00
162.00
T3
214.00
159.00
199.00
572.00
190.67
T4
74.00
84.50
47.00
205.50
68.50
T5
175.00
172.50
186.00
533.50
177.83
T6
178.50
319.00
187.00
684.50
228.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
364.778 182.389
Treatments
5
62771.611 12554.322
7.8106**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
16073.389 1607.339
Total
17
79209.778
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 26.66 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
37
Appendix Table 11. Weight of individual plant (g), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
50.10
64.00
66.00
180.10
60.03
T2
77.50
104.50
72.00
254.00
84.67
T3
139.00
148.50
172.50
459.00
153.00
T4
159.00
143.00
193.00
495.00
165.00
T5
37.50
70.00
53.00
160.50
53.50
T6
58.50
63.00
47.00
168.50
56.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
469.818
234.909
Treatments
5
41456.211
8291.242
19.7715**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
4193.522
419.352
Total
17
46119.551
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 21.91 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
38
Appendix Table 12. Weight of individual plant (g), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
65.50
62.50
43.00
171.00
57.00
T2
82.50
79.00
75.50
237.00
79.00
T3
161.00
144.50
156.50
462.00
154.00
T4
78.00
77.00
63.50
218.50
72.83
T5
79.50
79.00
76.50
235.00
78.33
T6
155.50
154.00
159.00
468.50
156.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
192.444 96.222
Factor A
5
28700.944
5740.189
134.8869**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
425.556
42.556
Total
17
29318.944
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 6.55 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
39
Appendix Table 13. Number of leaves per plant, first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
13.70
13.80
14.10
41.60
13.87
T2
13.00
11.50
11.30
35.80
11.93
T3
24.30
21.80
18.50
64.60
21.53
T4
15.00
16.40
11.40
42.80
14.27
T5
21.10
22.80
18.50
63.40
21.13
T6
10.80
10.80
12.30
33.90
11.30
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
16.004
8.002
Treatments
5
307.523
61.505
21.8187**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
28.189
2.819
Total
17
351.716
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 10.71 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
40
Appendix Table 14. Number of leaves per plant, second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
12.30
14.20
12.80
39.30
13.10
T2
12.30
12.60
10.60
35.50
11.83
T3
23.50
20.20
16.90
60.60
20.20
T4
23.90
19.30
17.50
60.70
20.23
T5
14.90
16.20
12.30
43.40
14.47
T6
12.50
17.40
12.60
42.50
14.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
31.943
15.972
Treatments
5
199.133
39.827
10.0921**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
39.463
3.946
Total
17
270.540
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 12.68 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
41
Appendix Table 15. Number of leaves per plant, third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
14.30
14.30
12.90
41.50
13.83
T2
10.00
10.10
10.50
30.60
10.20
T3
20.80
21.90
20.90
63.60
21.20
T4
10.40
9.60
10.30
30.30
10.10
T5
10.10
10.20
10.90
31.20
10.40
T6
16.70
22.20
20.50
59.40
18.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
3.054
1.527
Treatments
5
383.178
76.636
48.6506**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
15.752
1.575
Total
17
401.572
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 8.80 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
42
Appendix Table 16. Total yield from the succession cropping (kg)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
12.98
16.16
17.43
46.57
15.52
T2
31.94
24.75
31.73
88.42
88.42
T3
30.75
33.83
24.91
89.49
89.49
T4
25.71
24.40
19.66
69.77
69.77
T5
22.93
25.54
22.85
71.28
71.28
T6
35.69
28.98
30.84
95.51
95.51
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
13.189
6.594
Treatments
5
546.620
109.324
9.0598**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
120.669
12.067
Total
17
680.477
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 13.56 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
43
Appendix Table 17. Germination percentage (%) from spinach, romaine lettuce and
spoon cabbage seeds watered by its compost tea under controlled experiment
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
72
82
71
225.00
75.00
T2
75
77
82
234.00
78.00
T3
77
76
69
222.00
74.00
T4
85
82
81
248.00
82.67
T5
86
74
71
231.00
77.00
T6
84
87
81
252.00
84.00
T7
68
63
80
21.00
70.33
T8
88
82
82
252.00
84.00
T9
92
80
92
264.00
88.00
T10
95
79
96
270.00
90.00
T11
96
93
96
285.00
95.00
T12
95
85
94
274.00
91.33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
121.056
60.528
Treatments
5
1956.889
177.899
5.6644**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
690.944
31.407
Total
17
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 16.80 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
CABADING, MELVER S. APRIL 2010. Yield and Profitability of Chinese
Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce in Three Successive Croppings. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Silvestre L. Kudan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted in greenhouse condition at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet
from October 2009 to march 2010 to evaluate the yield of Chinese spinach, spoon
cabbage, and romaine lettuce in a three successive planting, to asses auto toxicity among
the three crops and to determine the profitability of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and
romaine lettuce after the three successive cropping.
The succession of spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine lettuce produced high yield
that obtained 344% return on investment or Php 3.44 for every peso invested in the
production. But did not differ from romaine lettuce or spoon cabbage successively
planted three times on the same plot that obtained 365% ROI and 226% ROI
respectively. Meanwhile, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage and spinach-romaine
lettuce-spoon cabbage succession croppings obtained 269% ROI and 226% ROI which
showed slight difference in yield compared to either romaine lettuce or spoon cabbage in
three successive croppings. On the other hand, spinach planted successively planted three
times on the same plot obtained 208% ROI or Php 2.08 for every peso invested in the
production.
Spoon cabbage seeds watered with romaine lettuce, spinach and spoon cabbage
compost tea had similar germination percentage with the control (water) which did not
also differ from romaine lettuce irrigated with spinach compost tea. Romaine lettuce
seeds watered with spoon cabbage compost tea had the lowest germination percentage
which was similar to romaine lettuce seeds watered with romaine lettuce compost tea,
and the spinach seeds watered with compost tea of romaine lettuce, spinach and spoon
cabbage. This controlled germination study supports the tremendous reduction in growth
and yield of spinach successively planted three times.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Description of the Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Soil and Climatic Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4
Importance of the Crops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Succession Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height at Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Weight of Marketable Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Weight of Non-Marketable Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Weight of Individual Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Number of Leaves per Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Total Yield from the Succession
Croppings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Germination Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
iii
Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
iv
1
INTRODUCTION
Succession cropping refers to the planting of a crop one after another on the same
piece of land. The main objective is to optimize the use of land for better productivity.
Philippine is an agricultural country but at this time, land availability of crop
production is getting smaller. In order to increase profit from crop production, proper
cropping systems, intensified use of land and efficient labor management become a
matter of necessity. Relatively, majority of the people in the Cordillera are engaged in
vegetable production but there is a limited area for expansion.
Recent studies showed that the profitability of crop production is determined by
cropping system employed by the farmers. Although, these systems are influence by
several factors such as environmental, biological, some old practices like relay cropping
or succession cropping are common to most farmers. However, such practices are usually
done regardless of the compatibilities of the crops being planted.
Succession planting is common in rain fed rice lands where vegetables are grown
as second crop and in the farms growing selected high value crops such as tomatoes,
cucumber, melons and beans. Planting may be done every month or every 2-4 months
depending on the crops and the varieties used.
Many farmers nowadays, succession cropping is common to them but there are
some problems in the plants planted after the first crop. This is because there are some
plants that are not compatible when it is successively planted. This study will help the
farmers select crop that are compatible to increase productivity. This will not benefit the
farmers only but also extension workers, researchers and the following generation who
will be involved in vegetable production.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
2
The objectives of the study were:
1. to evaluate the yield of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in
a three successive planting.
2. to assess auto toxicity among the three crops.
3. to determine the profitability of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine
lettuce after the three successive cropping.
This study was conducted at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2009 to
March 2010.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of the Crops
Romaine. According to Groman (1997), there are three main kinds of lettuce: (1)
head, (2) leaf, and (3) romaine. Head lettuce has leaves that curl around the center of the
plant forming a ball-shaped head. Crisp head lettuce or ice berg lettuce has tight head and
brittle, juicy leaves. Leaf lettuce forms dense, leafy dumps instead of head. Gardeners
grow more of it than any kind. Most leaf lettuce has a 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 shape among the various type of leaf lettuce.
On the other hand, romaine lettuce grows long and upright and its leaves are inward.
Romaine lettuce is most nutritious among the lettuce crops.
Chinese spinach. Spinach (Spinacia oleracea), as stated by Lorenz (1994), is
annual herb that belongs to the goosefoot family(Chenopdiaceae), which is grown for its
nutritious green leaves and is extensively cultivated throughout the world. Spinach is
considered to be native to Southwestern Asia. It was introduce to Europe during the
Middle Ages. Price (1991) mentioned that it was a special dish in Europe. The Persians
used it as medicine.
There are four main type of spinach: savoy, semi-savoy, flat-leaf, and baby
spinach. Savoy spinach has crinky, dark green and curly leave. Flat-leaf/ smooth-leaf
spinach is uncrinkled and have spade-shaped leaves that are easier to clean than the curly
types. Semi-savoy is a combination of savoy and flat-leaf. Baby spinach is a flat-leaf
variety and usually longer than three inches. It is often used in salads, but can also be
lightly cooked (Lumioan, 2006).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
4
Spoon cabbage. One of the leafy vegetables that provide nutrition to human is
spoon cabbage (Brassica chinensis L.). Common variations for spoon cabbage include
Bok-Choy, Pakchoi, Taisai, celery mustard and Chinese mustard. In addition, spoon
cabbage is botanically turnip. Unlike Chinese cabbage, it has thick glossy leaves and does
not form a true head. It is a small fast growing rosette-shaped, often upright (similar to
celery) crisp stemmed, annual with cup-shaped tender leaves.
Bok-Choy or spoon cabbage is an Asian vegetable which is being cultivated in
China since fifty century and member of the cabbage family. The smooth, wide stalks are
crunchy like celery, although they do not have string fibers and the long full leaves are
dark and consumed raw with dip or chopped and included in salads. Bok-Choy has high
water content and becomes limp very quickly upon cooking. It should be cooked very
quickly over high temperature so that the leaves become tender and stalks stay crisp.
Bok-Choy grows well with the flavor of soy sauce, hot pepper and toasted sesame oil.
Bok-Choy has a long, crisp, white meaty stalk that supports its dark green leaves. Stalks
should be firm, have fresh cooking leaves and range from 12-16 inches in length. Bok-
Choy’s mild flavor similar to cabbage and texture is tender-crisp.
Soil and Climatic Requirements
Chinese spinach. Spinach does not grow well unless it has an abundance of
moisture. It should be therefore planted in moist soil at a time when rainfall is abundant
or where artificial watering can be given. In wet seasons and cold weather ,it makes a
luxuriant growth of almost perfect foliage, but when the weather is hot and dry, it is not
only stunted by the unfavorable weather conditions but also seems more subject to insect
attacks. It is thus almost impossible to produce good spinach when the weather is hot and
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
5
dry (Lloyd, 1935). This crop matures within 6-10 weeks depending on climatic
conditions. A pH of 5.6 is favorable3 for spinach production (McColumn and Ware,
1975).
Romaine. According to McColumn (1942), lettuce can be grown in a wise variety
of soil, including muck and sandy or silty loam. Lettuce prefers a moist but well-drained
soil type, rich in organic matter, sandy loam or loam with pH ranging from 6.5-7.5.
Temperate requirements, Groman (1997) wrote that most kinds of commercial
lettuce grow well at 21-24 oC. In contrast, Wallace (1969) mentioned that the optimum
(high) temperature for lettuce is 10 to 15 oC with a day temperature of 15-20 oC. Seeds
germinate in 6 to 10 days and can be directly planted.
Spoon cabbage. Spoon cabbage is a cool season crop. Temperature ranging from
15 to 20 oF is favorable to its growth. However, spoon cabbage with temperature of 75 oF
can cause trip burn prolonged temperature 55 oF can initiate flowering and premature
bolting (McDonald, 1993). Furthermore, the same author stated that spoon cabbage
grows well in a well-drained soil with good water retention. In Arizona, spoon cabbage
grows in sandy loam to clay loam soil with a pH ranging from 7.5 to 8.0. It is also being
grown in the fall and winter. From time of weeding, spoon cabbage requires 40 to 80
days to reach maturity. In addition, spoon cabbage flowering is photoperiod sensitive
where in long days include flowering while short day promote vegetative growth.
Importance of the Crops
Chinese spinach. As food, spinach began a medicine used for its mildly laxative
effects, likely because of the oxalic acid. The oxalic acid binds calcium into an insoluble
salt (Calcium oxalate), which cannot be absorbed by the body. Spinach has extraordinary
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
6
vitamin C content and rich in riboflavin. It also contains a very high level of vitamin A,
folate, magnesium, potassium, as well as vitamin E, B6 and Thiamine. Despite of its
unusual iron and calcium content, it is rich in other important minerals, proteins, and
vitamins. Of all the vegetable juices, spinach juice is most the potent for the prevention of
cancer cell formation. Research has shown that those who eat spinach daily are not likely
to develop lung cancer (Lumioan, 2006).
Romaine. Ensminger et al. (1986) said that romaine lettuce is guaranteed to be
packed with nutrients. The vitamin and minerals found in romaine lettuce are especially
good for alleviation or prevention of many health complaints due to its extremely low
calorie amount and high water volume. Romaine lettuce while often over-cooked in the
nutrition world is actually a very nutritive food based on its nutrient density. The ranking
system qualified. It is source of vitamin A and C and folute manganese. Good source of
dietary fibers. The fiber adds another plus in its collism of heart healthy effects. Folic
acid (vitamin B), is needed by the body to covert a damaging chemical called
“homocytene” into another benign substances. In addition romaine lettuce is a very good
source of potassium, which is in lowering high blood pressure.
Spoon cabbage. Spoon cabbage is one of the most important leafy vegetables
produced and eaten in all parts of the world. It is a crop commercially grown in the
highland areas particularly Benguet and some parts of Mountain Province and considered
as a source of income for the people. Spoon cabbage can provide nutrition to humans
since it contains 14 calories of food energy, 1.0 protein, 2.37 grams carbohydrates, 0.18
grams total fat, and 0.84 grams fiber (Kinoshita, 1972).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
7
Succession Cropping
Earlier, Thatcher (1923) stated that in succession cropping, the first crops affect
the yield of the following crops either beneficial or deleterious. Moreover, Sabbarth
(1970) stated that a plant may enhance the growth and yield of another by adding
nutrients to the soil.
Relatively, Delorit (1959) stated that a well-planned crop rotation conserves,
improves and increases the productivity of the soil rather than depleting the fertility over
a period of time.
Furthermore, Cevallos (1933) stated that planting of different crops in succession
cropping on a piece of land merely prevent the exhaustion of any particular plant food
from the soil. He also indicated that when successive crops of one kind grown on the
same area, those elements which are more consumed become exhausted; hence the land
becomes weak and sticky.
A reduction in both crop yield and quality often occurs when the same crops or its
related species are cultivated on the same soil successively. This phenomenon is called
soil sickness. It is a complicated natural phenomenon and the causes are not fully known.
Various factors such as the buildup of pests in the soil, disorder in physico-chemical
properties of the soil, auto toxicity (special kind of allelopathy) and other unknown
factors are believed to be involved in soil sickness (Narwal, 1999).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in the study were spinach seeds, romaine lettuce seeds, spoon
cabbage seeds, watering cans and organic fertilizers (such as compost), garden
equipment, peg, weighing scale and record book.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experimental layout followed the
Randomized Complete Block Design ( RCBD) with 3 replications.
The treatments were as follows:
Code
Description
C1 =
Spinach- Spinach- Spinach
C2 =
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
C3 =
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
C4 =
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
C5 =
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
C6 =
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
Land preparation. Eighteen plots measuring 1m x 5m were prepared for the study.
The plots were applied with compost mixtures of grasses, animal manures, and sunflower
as base dress. No synthetic fertilizer was used as the greenhouse area is under organic
system of production.
Seedling production. Seeds of romaine lettuce were sown in a seedling trays
filled with sterilized soil media. The seedlings were transplanted 3 weeks from
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
9
emergence. On the other hand, spoon cabbage and Chinese spinach seeds were planted
directly to their assigned plots.
Crop maintenance. Irrigation was done after planting and was done twice a week
up to harvesting. Weeds were uprooted as they emerged on the plots in order not to
compete with the crops. There were larvae of insects, but they were collected and
crushed. All other cultural practices in growing the crops to ensure optimum growth and
yield were done.
Harvesting. The crops were harvested when they reach 30 to 35 days after
planting. The produced were packed and sold to the BSU organic market and to the
LaTOP stall in the La Trinidad public market.
Figure 1 shows a documentation during the planting time, irrigation and data
gathering.
Data Gathered
The data gathered, tabulated, and subjected to mean separation test using
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test ( DMRT) were:
1. Plant height at harvest (cm). Ten sample plants from each plot were selected at
random and measured during harvest from the base of the leaf petioles to the tip of the
longest leaf.
2. Total yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of marketable and non-
marketable plant harvested from each treatment plot.
3. Weight of marketable plants (kg). This was the weight of plants from each
treatment plot without defect which were sold in the market.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
10
a
b
c
Figure 1. Photographs during the planting time (a), irrigation of
the crops (b) and during harvest to gather yield data (c).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
11
4. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg). This was the weight of plants with
defect such as stunted, rotten; insect-damaged that were not be sold in the market.
5. Weight of individual plants (g). The weight of ten plants picked at random from
each treatment plot was divided by 10 to get the weight of each plant.
6. Number of leaves per plant. This was obtained from ten plants per plot by
counting the number of leaves then divided by 10 to get the number of leaves per plant.
7. Germination percentage (%). One hundred seeds from each test crop were sown
in a seedling trays replicated three times and the water where the plants were soaked for
two weeks was utilized for irrigating the seedling trays.
8. Return on investment (ROI). This was taken by using the formula:
ROI (%) = Gross sales- Total Expenses per Plot x 100
Total Expenses per Plot
9. Documentation through photographs. Observations that cannot be measured
like color of leaves was recorded in a photograph during the gathering of data. Figure 2
shows the different succession crops planted.
10. Other observations.
a. Occurrence of insect pests and diseases- Insect pests and diseases
attacking the crops during the cropping period was recorded and identified.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
12
a
b
c
Figure 2. The different succession crops planted: (a) spinach, (b) spoon
cabbage, and (c) romaine lettuce.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height at Harvest
Presented in Table 1 is the final height of crops at harvest. Statistically, spinach
significantly surpassed spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in height. However, this
difference in height may not be due to the succession cropping but a crop characteristic.
In the succession of crops planted on the plots, there were reduction in height of plants
but this might be due to the insufficient irrigation water during the succession cropping.
There was also severe infestation of flea beetles and mole crickets during the second and
third croppings especially flea beetles which were prevalent during dry season.
Weight of Marketable Plants
As presented in Table 2, there were slight differences among the spinach, romaine
lettuce and spoon cabbage from the first cropping. During the second cropping, romaine
Table 1. Plant height at harvest
TREATMENT
HEIGHT (cm)
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
34.60a
32.83a
29.57a
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
22.43b
19.40b
19.47c
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
23.23b
20.33b
20.30c
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
34.37a
21.70b
19.47c
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
23.80b 32.03a
20.03c
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
23.37b 32.53a
22.90b
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
14
lettuce had significantly higher marketable plants compared to spinach and spoon
cabbage in the succession. This result is due to the nature of spinach which are naturally
slender and light and the building auto-toxicity shown in reduced germination (Table 7)
in addition to severe infestation of flea beetle that affected the growth of spoon cabbage.
On the third succession crops, romaine lettuce had significantly heavier yield
while spoon cabbage reduced in weight of marketable plants particularly the spinach
where the weight decreased from the second to third croppings. This might indicate that
planting spinach on the same plot for more than twice has allelophatic interaction effect
as shown by the stunted plants (Figure 3) and the controlled germination percentage
(Table 7).
Table 2. Weight of marketable plants
TREATMENTS
WEIGHT (kg)
1st
2nd
3rd
Crop
Crop Crop
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
6.25b
5.42b
3.42c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
15.33a
5.50b
7.00b
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
11.08ab 7.75a
11.50a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
6.08b
9.08a
7.67b
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
11.00ab 4.33b
7.67b
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
13.00a
4.03b
11.17a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
15
Figure 3. Overview of the experimental area inside the greenhouse showing the
stunted growth of spinach (polonsai) and low percentage of survival.
Weight of Non-Marketable Plants
There were no significant differences among the croppings on the non-marketable
plants during the first and second cropping (Table 3). Except the romaine lettuce that had
significantly higher non-marketable plants in the third cropping, the rest of the cropping
systems had lesser non-marketable plants than the first and second cropping. The higher
weight of non-marketable plants in romaine lettuce was due to infestation of insect and
rotting as the plants were not sprayed with pesticide. Although, the non-marketable plant
were just in grams, the significant differences among the succession croppings might
reflect the allelophatic interaction effect.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
16
Table 3. Weight of non-marketable plants
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (kg)
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
0.17a
0.08a
0.17c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
0.28a
0.15a
0.09d
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
0.23a
0.13a
0.35a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
0.19a
0.15a
0.08d
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
0.30a
0.17a
0.09d
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
0.30a
0.14a
0.20b
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Individual Plant
Table 4 shows the weight of individual plant obtained from the three succession
crops evaluated. Romaine lettuce and spoon cabbage were significantly heavier than
spinach which is obviously a crop characteristic. Although romaine lettuce and spoon
cabbage have similar weight of individual plant during the first cropping, spoon cabbage
was outweighed by romaine lettuce during the second and third cropping due maybe to
allelophaty and the severe flea beetle infestation. Besides, the third cropping which was
replanted twice and was harvested earlier to catch up with the deadline of thesis defense.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
17
Table 4. Weight of individual plant
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (g)
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
75.17b 60.03b 57.00c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
162.00a 84.00b 79.00b
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
190.67a 163.17a 154.00a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
68.50b 165.00a 72.73b
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
177.83a 53.50b 78.33b
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
160.17a 45.17b 156.17a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Number of Leaves per Plant
As presented in Table 5, romaine lettuce has significantly more leaves compared
to spoon cabbage and spinach which is observed to be crop characteristic differences and
not being affected by the successive cropping. The leaf counts in spinach at harvest is
similar in the study of Dulatre (2008) while spoon cabbage was the same with the study
of Dayao (2008) and Pingalo (2008).
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
18
Table 5. Number of leaves per plant
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF LEAVES
1st
2nd
3rd
CROP CROP CROP
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
13.87b 13.10b 13.83b
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
11.93b 11.83b 10.20c
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
21.53a
20.20a 21.20a
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
14.27b 20.23a 10.10c
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
21.13a
14.47b 10.40c
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
11.30b 14.17b 19.80a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Total Yield from the Succession Croppings
As presented in Table 6, the succession of spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine lettuce
did not differ from romaine lettuce or spoon cabbage successively planted three times on
the same plots which produced significantly higher yield compared to planting spinach
three times successively. Meanwhile, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage and yield
compared to either romaine or spoon cabbage in three successive croppings.
Obviously, the height and weight of spinach was reduced particularly on the third
cropping which may imply that there is bad effect of planting spinach continuously on the
same plot. Narwal (1999) reported that various factors such as the buildup of pests in the
soil, disorder in physico-chemical properties of the soil, auto-toxicity (special kind of
allelopathy) and other unknown factors are believed to be involved in soil sickness.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
19
Table 6. Total yield from the succession croppings of spinach, spoon cabbage and
romaine lettuce
TREATMENT
TOTAL YIELD (kg)
Spinach-Spinach-Spinach
15.52c
Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage-Spoon cabbage
29.47ab
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce
29.83ab
Spinach-Romaine lettuce-Spoon cabbage
23.26b
Romaine lettuce-Spinach-Spoon cabbage
23.76b
Spoon cabbage-Spinach-Romaine lettuce
31.84a
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Germination Percentage
As presented in Table 7, spoon cabbage seeds watered with romaine lettuce,
spinach and spoon cabbage compost tea had similar germination percentage with the
control (water) which did not also differ from romaine lettuce irrigated with spinach
compost tea. Romaine lettuce seeds watered with spoon cabbage compost tea had the
lowest germination percentage which was similar to romaine lettuce seeds watered with
romaine lettuce compost tea, and the spinach seeds watered with compost tea of romaine
lettuce, spinach and spoon cabbage. This controlled germination study supports the
tremendous reduction in growth and yield of spinach successively planted three times.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
20
Table 7.Germination percentage (%) from spinach, romaine lettuce and spoon cabbage
seeds watered by its compost tea under controlled experiment
TREATMENT
PERCENTAGE
(%)
Spinach-Spinach 75.00de
Spinach-Spoon cabbage 78.00cde
Spinach-Romaine lettuce 74.00de
Spinach-water 82.67bcd
Romaine lettuce-Romaine lettuce 77.00de
Romaine lettuce-Spinach 84.00bcd
Romaine lettuce- Spoon cabbage 70.33e
Romaine lettuce-water 84.00bcd
Spoon cabbage- Spoon cabbage 88.00abc
Spoon cabbage-Spinach 90.00ab
Spoon cabbage-Romaine lettuce 95.00a
Spoon cabbage-water 91.33ab
Means in a column with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Return on Investment
Table 8 shows the profitability of spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in
succession croppings. The three successive croppings of romaine lettuce obtained the
highest net income with 365% ROI or Php 3.65 for every peso invested in the production.
In descending order, this was followed by the spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine lettuce
successions, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage succession, spinach-romaine lettuce-
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
21
spoon cabbage, spoon cabbage-spoon cabbage-spoon cabbage and spinach-spinach-
spinach on the same plot.
Table 8. Return on investments
TREATMENT
ITEMS
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Marketable Yield(kg) 45.05 86.00 91.00 68.00 69.00 93.60
A.Sales(Php) 4525.00 5160.00 9100.00 5930.00 5980.00 7430.00
B.Expenses(Php)
Inputs
1. Seeds 35.65 54.45 58.95 49.68 49.68 49.68
2. Compost 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00
3. Packing materials 200.00 299.00 400.00 251.00 253.00 306.00
Labor costs
4. Land preparation 58.74 58.74 58.74 58.74 58.74 58.74
5. Sowing - - 264.39 88.13 88.13 88.13
6. Planting 117.51 117.51 117.51 117.51 117.51 117.51
7. Irrigation 220.32 220.32 220.32 220.32 220.32 220.32
8. Harvesting 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00 235.00
9. Land rent 149.85 149.85 149.85 149.85 149.85 149.85
10. Depreciation 180.06 180.06 180.06 180.06 180.06 180.06
cost
Total Expenses(Php) 1467.00 1585.00 1955.00 1620.00 1622.00 1675.00
Net Profit (Php) 3058.00 3575.00 7145.00 4310.00 4358.00 5755.00
ROI(%) 208 226 365 266 269 344
Rank 6 5 1 4 3 2
Note: The selling price of spinach during harvest was Php 100.00 per kilo, spoon cabbage
was Php 60.00 per kilo and romaine lettuce was sold at Php 100.00/kg.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
22
Other Observations.
The severe infestation of flea beetles on the spoon cabbage especially the third
cropping resulted to replanting the treatment plots twice. This was due to the observation
that the period (dry season) coincide to the prevalence of flea beetles. Mole cricket, on
the other hand, surfaced and bulldozed the plots when irrigated destroying the emerging
seedlings. On romaine lettuce, insect damaged the inside leaves and at the same time, soft
rot was observed. Soft rot was also observed in spoon cabbage.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
23
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted at Balili area from October 2009 to March 2010 to
evaluate the yield of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage, and romaine lettuce in a three
successive planting, to asses auto toxicity among the three crops and to determine the
profitability of Chinese spinach, spoon cabbage and romaine lettuce in the three
succession croppings.
Results in the study show that romaine lettuce successively planted three times
had obtained high marketable yield, heavier weight of individual plant, highest number of
leaves counted resulting to heavier total yield. Spinach significantly surpassed spoon
cabbage and romaine lettuce in height, but slightly reduced in height during the second
and third cropping which also decreased in marketable yield during the second and third
cropping that resulted to lowest total yield clearly indicating that planting spinach on the
same plot more than twice has allelophatic interaction effect. Spoon cabbage seeds
watered with spinach and spoon cabbage compost tea had the highest germination
percentage compared to the romaine lettuce watered by the spoon cabbage tea. However,
on the second and third cropping, there was prevalence of flea beetles that attacked the
plant resulting to low marketable yield.
The economic analysis shows that romaine lettuce successively planted three
times obtained the highest net income with 365% return on investment or Php 3.65 for
every peso invested in the production followed by spoon cabbage-spinach-romaine
lettuce croppings, romaine lettuce-spinach-spoon cabbage, spinach-romaine lettuce-spoon
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
24
cabbage, spoon cabbage- spoon cabbage- spoon cabbage and the three cropping of
spinach on the same plot.
Conclusions
Based on the results, it is inferred that planting romaine lettuce successively for
three times have high yield and return on investment and there was no marked
allelophatic interaction effects while planting spinach successively on the same plot
results to poor growth and yield resulting to low ROI.
Recommendations
It is therefore recommended, that romaine lettuce can be planted for three times
on the same plot to obtain higher yield and higher profit and to avoid planting spinach on
the same plot in succession.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
25
LITERATURE CITED
CEVALLOS, F. O. 1933. Tropical Horticulture. Oriental Commercial Co., Inc. Phil. P.
92.
DAYAO, N. A. 2008. Growth and Yield Response of Spoon Cabbage (Brassica
chinensis L.) to Time of lquid Bio-Fertilizer application. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La
Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-38
DELORIT, R. D. 1959. Crop Production. Engelwood, New Jersey; Printice Hall, Inc. 2nd
Ed. P. 606.
DULATRE, V. B. 2008. Growth and Yield Performance of Chinese spinach ‘Dynasty’
Applied with compost tea of organic materials. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 1-27.
ENSMINGER, A. H., H. ESMINGER and M. J. K ENSMINGER. 1986. Food for health
Nutritional Encyl. California: Tata McGrawhill Publ., Co. P. 194.
GROMAN, J. 1997. The World Book Encyclopeadia. London: World Book Inc. 12: 194-
195.
KINOSHITA, K. 1972. Vegetable Production on Sub- tropics. Tokyo, Japan: Lippincott,
Inc. Pp. 146-148.
LLOYD, J. W. 1935. Cool Season Crops: Productive Vegetable Growing: New York:
Lippincott Book Co. Pp. 225-256.
LORENZ, O. A. 1994. Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia. Lexicon Publications, Inc. New
York. 18: 184.
LUMIOAN, N. C. 2006. Response of Spinach(Spinacia oleracae L.) to different fertilizer
rates. BS Thesis BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 3-4.
McCOLUMN, J. P. 1942. Producing Crops. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publ., Inc. P. 384.
McCOLUMN and WARE. 1975. Vegetable Crop Production: Producing Vegetable
Crops. New York: The McMillan Co. Pp. 437-445.
McDONALD, F. 1993. The American Horticultural Society. Encyclopedia of Gardening.
USA: Dorling Kindersley Inc. Pp. 320.
NARWAL, S. S. 1999. Allelopathy Update. Basic and Applied Aspects. Science
Publishers. Inc. USA. P. 156.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
26
PINGALO, A. V. 2008. Yield and Profitability of Pak choi ‘Chorokee’ Applied with
Foliar Fertilizer. B. S. Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.1-40.
PRICE, H. C. 1991. The World Book Encyclopedia. World Book Inc. London. 18:792.
SABARTH, E. 1970. Plant Symbiosis; Biodynamics. Winter. Pp. 13-30.
THATCHER, R. W. 1923. The effect of one crop on another. Journal of American
Science of Agronomy. 15(8): 331-337.
WALLACE, D. H. 1969. Genetics, environment and Plant response. In Vegetable
Training Manual (R. L.Villareal and D. H. Wallace ed.) UPLB, College, Los
Baños, Laguna. P. 20.
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
27
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Plant height at harvest (cm), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
30.40
36.40
37.00
103.8
34.60
T2
23.40
21.60
22.30
67.30
22.43
T3
22.90
22.40
24.40
69.70
23.23
T4
37.50
36.20
31.20
103.1
34.27
T5
23.00
24.30
24.10
71.40
23.80
T6
22.80
23.60
23.70
70.10
23.37
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
3.510
1.755
Treatments
5
511.513
102.303
23.4765**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
43.577
4.358
Total
17
558.600
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation 7.74 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
28
Appendix Table 2. Plant height at harvest (cm), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
32.10
35.30
31.10
98.50
32.83
T2
20.30
20.30
17.60
58.20
19.40
T3
20.90
19.80
20.30
61.00
20.33
T4
22.00
19.80
23.30
65.10
21.70
T5
30.50
34.10
31.50
96.10
32.03
T6
32.70
34.70
30.2
97.60
32.53
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
8.361
4.181
Treatments
5
655.809
131.162
43.6253**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
30.066
3.007
Total
17
694.236
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 5.55 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
29
Appendix Table 3. Plant height at harvest (cm), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
30.20
30.80
27.70
88.70
29.57
T2
19.40
19.10
19.90
58.40
19.47
T3
19.90
21.10
19.90
60.90
20.30
T4
19.20
19.60
19.60
58.40
19.47
T5
20.30
20.10
19.70
60.10
20.03
T6
24.50
21.10
23.10
68.70
22.90
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
1.081
0.541
Treatments
5
232.938
46.488
39.6640**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
11.746
1.175
Total
17
254.7764
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 4.94 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
30
Appendix Table 4. Weight of marketable plants (kg), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
3.25
6.25
9.25
18.75
6.25
T2
18.50
11.00
16.50
46.00
15.33
T3
11.00
11.25
11.00
33.25
11.08
T4
7.75
7.25
3.25
18.25
6.08
T5
10.50
11.25
11.25
33.00
11.00
T6
19.00
12.50
16.50
48.00
16.00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
6.438
3.219
Treatments
5
203.281
40.656
5.3627*
3.33 5.64
Error
10
75.813
7.581
Total
17
285.531
* = significant Coefficient of variation = 26.33 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
31
Appendix Table 5. Weight of marketable plants (kg), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
4.00
5.50
6.75
16.25
5.42
T2
6.50
8.00
5.00
19.50
6.50
T3
8.75
8.25
6.25
23.25
7.75
T4
9.50
8.75
9.00
27.25
9.08
T5
3.25
5.50
4.25
13.00
4.33
T6
3.60
4.75
3.75
12.10
4.03
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.697
0.348
Treatments
5
59.409
11.882
10.1470**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
11.710
1.171
Total
17
71.816
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 17.98 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
32
Appendix Table 6. Weight of marketable plants (kg), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
5.25
4.00
1.00
10.25
3.42
T2
6.50
5.00
9.50
20.50
6.83
T3
10.00
13.50
11.00
34.50
11.50
T4
8.00
8.00
7.00
23.00
7.67
T5
8.00
8.00
11.00
23.00
7.67
T6
12.5
11.25
9.75
33.50
11.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
2.528
1.264
Treatments
5
133.434
26.687
9.1585**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
29.139
2.914
Total
17
165.101
** = significant Coefficient of variation = 21.15 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
33
Appendix Table 7. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.50
0.17
T2
0.19
0.15
0.50
0.84
0.28
T3
0.60
0.55
0.45
1.60
0.53
T4
0.15
0.18
0.25
0.58
0.19
T5
1.00
0.65
0.15
1.65
0.55
T6
0.25
0.20
0.45
0.90
0.30
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.018
0.009
Treatments
5
0.485
0.097
2.04ns
3.33 5.64
Error
10
0.474
0.047
Total
17
0.977
ns = Not significant Coefficient of variation = 33.02 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
34
Appendix Table 8. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.08
T2
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.45
0.15
T3
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.38
0.13
T4
0.23
0.12
0.10
0.45
0.15
T5
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.26
0.09
T6
0.12
0.10
0.20
0.42
0.14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.115
0.058
Treatments
5
0.374
0.035
2.23ns
3.33 5.64
Error
10
0.469
0.047
Total
17
0.911
ns = Not significant Coefficient of variation = 25.39 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
35
Appendix Table 9. Weight of non-marketable plants (kg), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.52
0.17
T2
0.10
0.10
0.08
1.00
0.33
T3
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.66
0.22
T4
0.08
0.10
0.06
0.24
0.08
T5
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.25
0.09
T6
0.22
0.18
0.19
0.59
0.20
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
0.002
0.001
Treatments
5
0.058
0.012
38.2308**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
0.003
0.000
Total
17
0.063
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 12.29 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
36
Appendix Table 10. Weight of individual plant (g), first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
66.00
72,00
87.50
225.50
75.17
T2
181.51
133.00
171.50
486.00
162.00
T3
214.00
159.00
199.00
572.00
190.67
T4
74.00
84.50
47.00
205.50
68.50
T5
175.00
172.50
186.00
533.50
177.83
T6
178.50
319.00
187.00
684.50
228.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
364.778 182.389
Treatments
5
62771.611 12554.322
7.8106**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
16073.389 1607.339
Total
17
79209.778
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 26.66 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
37
Appendix Table 11. Weight of individual plant (g), second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
50.10
64.00
66.00
180.10
60.03
T2
77.50
104.50
72.00
254.00
84.67
T3
139.00
148.50
172.50
459.00
153.00
T4
159.00
143.00
193.00
495.00
165.00
T5
37.50
70.00
53.00
160.50
53.50
T6
58.50
63.00
47.00
168.50
56.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
469.818
234.909
Treatments
5
41456.211
8291.242
19.7715**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
4193.522
419.352
Total
17
46119.551
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 21.91 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
38
Appendix Table 12. Weight of individual plant (g), third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
65.50
62.50
43.00
171.00
57.00
T2
82.50
79.00
75.50
237.00
79.00
T3
161.00
144.50
156.50
462.00
154.00
T4
78.00
77.00
63.50
218.50
72.83
T5
79.50
79.00
76.50
235.00
78.33
T6
155.50
154.00
159.00
468.50
156.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
192.444 96.222
Factor A
5
28700.944
5740.189
134.8869**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
425.556
42.556
Total
17
29318.944
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 6.55 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
39
Appendix Table 13. Number of leaves per plant, first cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
13.70
13.80
14.10
41.60
13.87
T2
13.00
11.50
11.30
35.80
11.93
T3
24.30
21.80
18.50
64.60
21.53
T4
15.00
16.40
11.40
42.80
14.27
T5
21.10
22.80
18.50
63.40
21.13
T6
10.80
10.80
12.30
33.90
11.30
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
16.004
8.002
Treatments
5
307.523
61.505
21.8187**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
28.189
2.819
Total
17
351.716
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 10.71 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
40
Appendix Table 14. Number of leaves per plant, second cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
12.30
14.20
12.80
39.30
13.10
T2
12.30
12.60
10.60
35.50
11.83
T3
23.50
20.20
16.90
60.60
20.20
T4
23.90
19.30
17.50
60.70
20.23
T5
14.90
16.20
12.30
43.40
14.47
T6
12.50
17.40
12.60
42.50
14.17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
31.943
15.972
Treatments
5
199.133
39.827
10.0921**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
39.463
3.946
Total
17
270.540
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 12.68 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
41
Appendix Table 15. Number of leaves per plant, third cropping
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
14.30
14.30
12.90
41.50
13.83
T2
10.00
10.10
10.50
30.60
10.20
T3
20.80
21.90
20.90
63.60
21.20
T4
10.40
9.60
10.30
30.30
10.10
T5
10.10
10.20
10.90
31.20
10.40
T6
16.70
22.20
20.50
59.40
18.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
3.054
1.527
Treatments
5
383.178
76.636
48.6506**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
15.752
1.575
Total
17
401.572
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 8.80 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
42
Appendix Table 16. Total yield from the succession cropping (kg)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
12.98
16.16
17.43
46.57
15.52
T2
31.94
24.75
31.73
88.42
88.42
T3
30.75
33.83
24.91
89.49
89.49
T4
25.71
24.40
19.66
69.77
69.77
T5
22.93
25.54
22.85
71.28
71.28
T6
35.69
28.98
30.84
95.51
95.51
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
13.189
6.594
Treatments
5
546.620
109.324
9.0598**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
120.669
12.067
Total
17
680.477
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 13.56 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
43
Appendix Table 17. Germination percentage (%) from spinach, romaine lettuce and
spoon cabbage seeds watered by its compost tea under controlled experiment
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
72
82
71
225.00
75.00
T2
75
77
82
234.00
78.00
T3
77
76
69
222.00
74.00
T4
85
82
81
248.00
82.67
T5
86
74
71
231.00
77.00
T6
84
87
81
252.00
84.00
T7
68
63
80
21.00
70.33
T8
88
82
82
252.00
84.00
T9
92
80
92
264.00
88.00
T10
95
79
96
270.00
90.00
T11
96
93
96
285.00
95.00
T12
95
85
94
274.00
91.33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE.
SOURCE OF DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Block
2
121.056
60.528
Treatments
5
1956.889
177.899
5.6644**
3.33 5.64
Error
10
690.944
31.407
Total
17
** = highly significant Coefficient of variation = 16.80 %
Yield and Profitability of Chinese Spinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce
in Three Successive Croppings /Melver S. Cabading. 2010
Document Outline
- Yield and Profitability of ChineseSpinach, Spoon Cabbage and Romaine Lettuce in Three Successive Croppings.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Description of the Crops
- Soil and Climatic Requirements
- Importance of the Crops
- Succession Cropping
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Plant Height at Harvest
- Weight of Marketable Plants
- Weight of Non-Marketable Plants
- Weight of Individual Plant
- Number of Leaves per Plant
- Total Yield from the Succession Croppings
- Germination Percentage
- Return on Investment
- Other Observations.
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Summary
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES