BIBLIOGRAPHY FERNANDEZ, HERMA V. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
FERNANDEZ, HERMA V. APRIL 2010. Growth and Yield of Chives (Allium
schoenoprasum as Affected by Different Kinds and Rates of Slow Release Fertilizer.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Araceli G. Ladilad, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the efficacy of using slow release
fertilizers on the growth, flowering and yield of chives, determine the appropriate kinds
and rates of slow release fertilizer that can be used profitably for chive production under
La Trinidad Benguet Condition and the economics of using the different slow release
fertilizers in Chive production.
Results shows that the different kinds of slow release fertilizers had not
significantly affected the height of the plants, number of leaves and number of slips
produced at flowering. Application of Osmocote (15-9-12) and Osmocote (14-14-14)
promoted earlier flowering of chives.
The different rates of slow release fertilizer application did not affect significant
differences in all parameters gathered. Only slight differences were recorded on the
growth and yield of the plants as affected by the different rates of application.
However, application of 10 g/pot Osmocote (15-9-12) promoted the highest yield
of ROI, meanwhile 10 g/pot of Multicote (17-17-17) had also a comparable yield and
ROI.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………. i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………… i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………………………
iii
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………..
4
MATERIALS AND METHODS ……………………………………………
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height at Flowering (cm)………………………………………
10
Number of Leaves per Plant
at Flowering………………………………………………………….
11
Weight of Harvested Leaves ….………….…………………………
13
Number of Slips at Harvest………………………………………….
17
Number of Days from Planting to
Flower Bud Formation……………………………………………....
18
Return On Investment…..…………………………………………...
19
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………
21
Summary…………………………………………………..………... 21
Conclusions………………………………………………………..... 22
Recommendations…………………………………………………... 22
LITERATURE CITED………………………………………………..…….
23
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………..….. 24
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
Chive (
Allium schoenoprasum L.) belongs to the Amaryllis family,
Amaryllidaceae, which are clump forming perennials. They are the smallest species of
the onion family, they grow 30 to 50 cm tall. The bulbs are conical and measuring 2 to 3
long and 1 cm wide. They grow clustered from the roots instead of growing individually,
the leaves are hollow, tubular, almost grass- like in shape and grow up to 50 cm long and
2 to 3 mm in diameter, the leaves are chopped and used as garnish and flavoring in
salads, dips, soups, and cheeses due to its mild onion flavor. Flowers are pale purple and
white, star-shaped with six petals, 1 to 2 cm wide that are produced in a dense
inflorescence surrounded by papery bract border; it is edible and contain large amounts of
Vitamin C. Nowadays herb are most commonly known for their culinary, medicinal,
aromatic and decorative qualities (Poincelot, 2004).
Osmocote and Multicote fertilizer formulations which are controlled release
fertilizer can be applied in soil from the field capacity to permanent wilting capacity point
moisture level with no significant differences in the rate of nutrient release in wide ranges
of soil pH 4.0 to 6.9. Osmocote and multicote formulations upon applications, the
nutrients are released over a period of time. Osmocote has three to four months longevity
(14-14-14) and Multicote (17-17-17) has three months longevity. Multicote granule is a
mixture of NPK encapsulated into biodegradable polymer coating that does not contain
Chlorine. Osmocote granules are coated with resin and when moisture penetrates the
coating, it will make salts soluble. Slow release fertilizer compared to the other forms of
fertilizers has minimum detrimental effects on the soil and atmospheric environments due
to the controlled release of nutrients into the soil solution and ground water, preventing
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
2
further deterioration of global environment. Since Osmocote and Multicote releases
slowly, it does not cause injury of seed and roots of developing plants. A study conducted
by Rehm (1994) showed that a sustained profit in a farm enterprise is highly dependent
on achieving optimum yield with most efficient use of inputs.
Most plants was lost or will revert to less desirable forms unless they are
domesticated and propagated under controlled conditions that preserve the unique
characteristics that make them useful (Hartmann
et al., 1986).
At present, most of the farmers spend a big percentage of their capital for
fertilizers alone. Most of them also prefer a quick release type of fertilizer because they
want to see the immediate effect to their crop in a shorter span of time as possible. In
reality they are not aware that they are not following the efficient and right amount of
fertilizers applied, maybe sometimes they obtained less profit from the previous
croppings so they add more fertilizers the following cropping in hope of greater yield.
The result then is that they are degrading their soil and rendering it to be more acidic soil.
Slow release type of fertilizer is proven to be more economical because one application
per cropping is sufficient to supply the required nutrient of crops, and an efficient way of
taking care of the soil.
Chives are grown not as a main crop, in most cases they are grown as secondary
crop. Some gardeners used chives as a perennial edging or border plant in an herb garden
because of their leaves and flower for culinary and medicinal uses. Fertilizing them
therefore is necessary, so it is essential to know the best type of slow release fertilizer
used and the right amount that best correspond to their required need until harvest.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
3
The study was conducted at the Benguet State University Ornamental Research
Area, La Trinidad Benguet from October to March 2010 to determine the efficacy of
using slow release fertilizers on the growth, flowering and yield of chives; determine the
appropriate kinds and rates of slow release fertilizers that can be used profitably for chive
production under La Trinidad, Benguet, determine the economics of using the different
fertilizer treatments.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Plant
Chives are a member of the onion family; it grows to about 45 cm in height and
produces an attractive purple and white flower similar to pom-pom in shape. Chives are
perennial plant and can also be used as an organic means of repelling aphids.
Fertilizer Application
Fertilizer is one of the most important ingredients of the total recipe to grow
plants. Plants do need water, air, light, nutrition, soil and temperature all in right ratio at
the right moment and during all right period (Scotts, 1996). The rate of application of
chemical fertilizers depend such factors as: 1) the character of the soil; 2) the previous
crop grown and the manner in which it was fertilized; 3) the moisture conditions; 4) the
importance of early maturity; 5) the possibility of early irrigation; 6) the amount of land
available; and 7) the amount of fertilizer to be applied to the soil depends on the
recommended rate of application and the percentage nutrient content or grade of the
fertilizer materials (Watts, 1972).
Faustino (1998), mentioned that slow release fertilizers promised to be the
acceptable method of fertilization from an environmental stand point of view. They
currently occupy a small niche in the over all market for chemical fertilizer, as
technologies continue to evolve.
French and Alsburg (1989), cited that the major advantage of slow release
fertilizer is that a single application can provide the majority of the nutrient for the
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
5
growing season. Following the necessary method of application, production of superior
quality plants can be obtained.
Buyas (1994), found that basal application of N-P2O5-K2O was needed to promote
the growth of stems and leaves of plants
Day-a (1987), mentioned that plant fertilized with slow released fertilizer through
Osmocote were pale green but were predominantly fibrous.
Fertilizer Rates
Chaong (1987), stated that application of 75-75-75 or 100-100-100 kg NPK/ ha
improved plant height, increased the number of leaves produced at anthesis, produced
longer stem, bigger blooms, greater number of suckers per plant and increased yield of
cut flowers per area in Shasta daisy.
Day-a (1999), applied Osmocote Triple 14 and Multicote Triple 17 slow release
fertilizer formulations in chrysanthemum cut flower production, applied as basal fertilizer
at the rate of 60-60-60 kg NPK/ha. She found that Osmocote Triple 14 and 70-70-70 kg
NPK /ha Multicote is beneficial in the production of quality chrysanthemum cut flowers.
Torio (2000), also showed that comparable plant height, number of leaves, total
leaf area, stem length, cut flower yield, flowering and duration of flower development
were recorded in snapdragon fertilized with 70-70-70, 90-90-90 and 120-120-120 kg N-
P2O 5-K2O /ha.
Aust (2008), slow release fertilizer are generally comprised of organic, natural, or
recycled materials, making them much more healthy for the environment. They also
release the appropriate amount of nutrients to your vegetables and flowers without
wasting material or requiring frequent re-application. These fertilizers also tend to stay
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
6
around longer in garden. If it is applied large amount, the plant roots will not be burned
because only a little is released at a time, and the fertilizer will be available over a long
period of time which means the gardener does not have to re-apply fertilizer as often.
Slow release fertilizer helps reduce water pollution because it is not which soluble and
nutrient are released in useful amounts means they aren’t washed away in storm water
run-off.
Quick release fertilizers are readily available to a plant and are often water
soluble. With slow release, the nutrients are released over a period of time, which is
sometimes dependent on temperature and the amount of moisture that’s provided to the
plant.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used in the study were bulbs of chives, different kinds of slow
release fertilizers, measuring sticks, foot rule, plastic pots (6 inches in diameter),
weighing scale, and labeling materials.
The study was laid out following the Randomized Complete Block Design
(RCBD) in Factorial arrangement replicated four times. The different kinds of slow
release fertilizers was assigned as Factor A and the rates of application as Factor B. There
were three sample plants per treatment replication. The treatment was as follows:
Factor A: Kind of Slow Release Fertilizer
F1-No fertilizer applied
F2- Multicote 17-17-17
F3- Agroblen 18-6-12
F4- Osmocote 14-14-14
F5- Osmocote 15-9-12
F6- Complete 14-14-14
Factor B- Rates of fertilizer Application (g/pot)
R1- 5
R2- 10
R3- 15
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
8
Planting. Three healthy bulbs of chive were properly planted per pot, following
the recommended spacing.
Fertilizer application. The different fertilizer treatments were applied once, at
planting time.
Growing media. The soil used as growing media is a mixture of sandy loam and
BSU compost in a 2:1 ratio.
Care and maintenance. Cultural management practices such as weeding, crop
protection and irrigation were done uniformly as recommended.
Data gathered. The data gathered was tabulated, computed and the means was
compared using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).
A. Vegetative Growth
1. Final height at flowering (cm). These were obtained by measuring the final
height of the plant from the base up to the flowering at close bud stage.
2. Number and weight of leaves per plant at flowering (g). This was gathered by
counting the number and weighing of leaves at flowering.
3. Number of slips produced at harvest. This was taken by counting the number
of slips produced during harvest.
B. Reproductive Growth
1. Number of days from planting to flower bud formation. This was the duration
from planting to the formation of 1 cm bud size.
C. Yield and Yield Components
a. Total weight of harvested chives per treatment (g). This was taken by weighing
the harvested chive leaves.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
9
D. Occurrence of insect pests and diseases
E. Cost and return analysis. The study was recorded and the return on investment was
computed using the formula.
ROI (%) = Gross sale – Total expenses x 100
Total expenses
F. Documentation of the study. This was obtained through pictures from flowering stage
and harvesting.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height at Flowering
Effect of kinds of slow release fertilizer. The height of the experimental plants at
flowering was measured at close bud stage. Result show that there were no significant
differences noted on the plant heights as an effect of the different kinds of slow release
fertilizer applied (Table 1). There were slight differences in plant height among the
different treatments. Osmocote (14-14-14) had the tallest plant with a mean of 53.17 cm,
while complete (14-14-14) recorded the lowest mean on height measurement which is
shorter than the control (no fertilizer applied). Figure 1 shows an overview of the
experimental plants at flowering.
Table 1. Final height at flowering
TREATMENT
FINAL HEIGHT (cm)
Kinds of Slow Release Fertilizer
No fertilizer applied
52.33a
Multicote (17-17-17)
52.00a
Agroblen (18-6-12)
52.58a
Osmocote (14-14-14)
53.17a
Osmocote (15-9-12)
51.50a
Complete (14-14-14)
50.17a
Rates of fertilizer Application (g/pot)
5
51.63a
10
52.29a
15
51.96a
FxR
ns
CV
9.05
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
11
Figure 1. Overview of the experimental plants at flowering
Effect of rate of application. Table 1 shows that there was no marked differences rated
among the rates of fertilizer applied with 10 g/pot was slightly taller (52.29 cm) than the
other treatment, 5g/pot and 15 g/pot with a mean of (51.63) and (51.96) respectively.
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction effect noted on the kinds and rates
of fertilizer applied on the measured height of the plants.
Number of Leaves per Plant
at Flowering
Effect of kinds of slow release fertilizer. There were no appreciable differences
recorded on the average number of leaves of the plants as counted at flowering stage.
There were slight differences but statistically it was found not significant; Multicote (17-
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
12
17-17), Osmocote (15-9-12) and Osmocote (14-14-14) produced the highest leafcount at
flowering with a mean of 13.58, 13.08 and 13.00 respectively. Meanwhile control (no
fertililizer applied) produced the lowest leafcount at flowering with a mean of 11.33
(Table 2).
Effect of rates of application. As shown in Table 2, there were no significant
differences realized statistically on the leaf count per plant at flowering as an effect of the
different rate of application. The highest mean was recorded on the 10 g/pot rate of
application.
Interaction effect. There were no interaction effect realized on the number of
leaves counted at flowering as affected by the different kinds and rates of slow release
fertilizer.
Table 2. Number of leaves/treatment at flowering
TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
LEAVES
Kinds of Slow Release Fertilizer
No fertilizer applied
11.33a
Multicote (17-17-17)
13.58a
Agroblen (18-6-12)
11.75a
Osmocote (14-14-14)
13.00a
Osmocote (15-9-12)
13.08a
Complete (14-14-14)
12.67a
Rates of fertilizer Application (g/pot)
5
12.79a
10
13.08a
15
11.83a
FxR
ns
CV
17.82
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
13
Weight of Harvested Leaves
Effect of kinds of slow release fertilizer. Result of the weight of harvested leaves
per plant as affected by the different kinds of slow release fertilizer shows that there was
a highly significant difference among the treatments (Table 3). Osmocote (15-9-12)
recorded the heaviest harvested leaves with an averege of 17 g per plant followed by
Osmocote (14-14-14) and Multicote (17-17-17) with an average weight of 14.75 and
14.42 respectively. Meanwhile the control (no fertilizer applied) had the lowest weight of
harvested leaves. This is because it was observed that although there was no significant
differences noted on the number of leaves produced at flowering among the treatments,
the harvested leaves on the plants applied with Osmocote (15-9-12) was wider and
thicker in comparison with the leaves produced by the unfertilized plants (Control).
Effect of rates of application. Table 3 shows that although not statistically
significant result showed that application of 10 g/pot of the different kind of slow release
fertilizers recorded the heaviest leaves harvested per plant. Application of 10 g/pot had an
average weight of 13.92 g while the lightest was recorded on application of 5g/pot.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effects realized between
the kinds and rates of slow release fertilizer on the weight of chive leaves harvested.
Figure 2 and 3 shows the harvested chive leaves as affected by different kinds and rates
of slow release fertilizers.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
14
Table 3. Weight of harvested leaves
TREATMENT MEAN
(g)
Kinds of Slow Release Fertilizer
No fertilizer applied 10.50c
Multicote (17-17-17)
14.42ab
Agroblen (18-6-12)
12.33bc
Osmocote (14-14-14)
14.75ab
Osmocote (15-9-12)
17.00bc
Complete (14-14-14)
12.42a
Rates of fertilizer Application (g/pot)
5
13.21a
10
13.96a
15
13.54a
FxR
ns
CV
25.60
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
15
Figure 2. Harvested chive leaves as affected by different kinds and rates of slow
release fertilizers
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
16
Figure 3. Harvested chive leaves as affected by different kinds and rates of slow
release fertilizers
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
17
Number of Slips at Harvest
Effect of kinds of slow release fertilizer. Results of the number of slips produced
per plant at flowering shows that there was no differences among the treatment (Table 4).
Almost all of the treatments produced an average of two slips at flowering. Slightly
higher slip counts was recorded on Osmocote (14-14-14) with a mean of 2.17.
Effect of rates of application. Table 4 reveals that there was no marked difference
on the number of slips produced by the plants as affected by rates of slow release
fertilizer. Almost all plants produced a mean of two slips.
Interaction effect. There were no interaction effects on the number of slips
produced per plant at flowering as affected by the different kinds and rates of slow
release fertilizers.
Table 4. Number of slips at harvest
TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
SLIPS
Kinds of Slow Release Fertilizer
No fertilizer applied
2.00a
Multicote (17-17-17)
1.92a
Agroblen (18-6-12)
1.92a
Osmocote (14-14-14)
2.17a
Osmocote (15-9-12)
2.00a
Complete (14-14-14)
2.00a
Rates of fertilizer Application (g/pot)
5
2.00a
10
1.90a
15
2.04a
FxR ns
CV
20.35
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
18
Number of Days from Planting to Flower Bud Formation
Effect of kinds of slow release fertilizer. Table 5 shows that a highly significant
difference was manifested by the plants on the number of days from planting to flower
bud formation as affected by different kind of slow release fertilizer. Plants applied with
Osmocote (15-9-12) and Osmocote (14-14-14) developed flower bud earlier with an
average of 94.25 and 95.50 DAP respectively. Plants applied with complete (14-14-14)
and Agroblen (15-9-12) recorded the longest to develop flower bud. This can attribute by
variation among the planting materials or the contents present on the different slow
release fertilizer which promote earlier flower development. This corroborates with the
findings of Palao-ay 2009 in her study (Effect of different Kinds and Rates of Slow
Release Fertilizer on the growth and flowering of Hydrangea) she noted that Agroblen
(15-9-12) promotes earlier flowering of Hydrangea.
Effect of rates of application. No significant differences were obtained on the
number of days to flower bud formation as affected by the rates of application (Table 5).
The table shows that increasing the rate of slow release fertilizer promotes earlier
flowering of the plants (Table 5).
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effects manifested by the
different kinds and rates of slow release fertilizer on the number of days from planting to
flower bud formation of chive plants.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
19
Table 5. Number of days from planting to flower bud formation
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF DAYS
Kinds of Slow Release Fertilizer
No fertilizer applied
102.25ab
Multicote (17-17-17)
102.33ab
Agroblen (18-6-12)
107.83a
Osmocote (14-14-14)
95.50b
Osmocote (15-9-12)
94.25a
Complete (14-14-14)
110.67a
Rates of fertilizer Application (g/pot)
5
104.38a
10
102.79a
15
99.25a
FxR ns
CV
11.10
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Return on Investment
The return on investment computed from the different fertilizer treatments is
presented on Table 6. Results of computation shows that application of Osmocote (15-9-
12) with a rate of 10 g/pot recorded the highest net income, followed by Multicote (17-
17-17) with 5 g/pot application and Osmocote (15-9-12) with a rate of 15 g/pot. However
the highest ROI was obtained by the application of 10 g/pot of of Osmocote (15-9-12)
with a ROI of 124%, 5 g/pot of Multicote (17-17-17) and 10 g/pot of Complete (14-14-
14) which has a computed ROI of 113% and 104%. Meanwhile, the lowest ROI was
recorded from the application of 15 g/pot of Multicote (17-17-17) and 5 g/pot application
of Agroblen (18-6-12). The computed ROI of the different treatments did not correspond
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
20
to the yield because of their variation on the total expenses, the control (no fertilizer) had
a comparable ROI with the other because it has the lowest expenses while the highest
expenses was obtained in the application of 15 g/pot Multicote (17-17-17) and 5 g/pot
Agroblen (18-6-12) .
Occurrence of Insect Pest and Disease
There were no serious insect pest or disease in chive encountered during the
study.
Table 6. Return On Investment (ROI)
TREATMENT
YIELD
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
ROI
(g/pot)
SALES EXPENSES INCOME
(%)
(PhP)
Control
127
34.68
29.94
4.74
10
Multicote(17-17-17) 5 g/pot
203
71.05
33.37
37.68
113
10 g/pot
166
58.00
38.97
19.00
49
15 g/pot
152
53.20
44.57
8.63
19
Agroblen (18-6-12) 5 g/pot
152
53.20
44.57
8.63
19
10 g/pot
127
54.95
37.44
17.51
47
15 g/pot
146
51.00
42.26
8.74
21
Osmocote(14-14-14) 5 g/pot
183
64.00
32.60
31.40
96
10 g/pot
145
50.75
37.44
13.31
36
15 g/pot
199
69.65
42.26
27.39
65
Osmocote (15-9-12) 5 g/pot
160
56.00
32.60
23.40
72
10 g/pot
239
83.65
37.40
46.25
124
15 g/pot
200
70.00
42.26
27.74
66
Complete(14-14-14) 5 g/pot
127
44.45
28.27
16.18
14
10 g/pot
168
58.80
28.77
30.00
104
15 g/pot
144
50.40
28.27
22.13
78
*Total expenses include: planting materials, plastic pots, slow release fertilizers
* Priced at PhP 35/ 100g in the month of March 2010
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the efficacy of using slow release
fertilizers on the growth flowering and yield of chives, determine the appropriate kinds
and rates of slow release fertilizer that can be used profitably for Chive production under
La Trinidad, Benguet and the economics of using the different kinds of slow release
fertilizer treatments.
Results showed that the different Kinds of slow release fertilizer applied had not
affected the height of the plants, there were slight differences noted. In terms of leaf
count at flowering there were also marked differences among the kinds of slow release
fertilizer applied in affecting the number of leaves of the plant, although not statistically
significant application of Multicote(17-17-17), Osmocote (15-9-12) and Osmocote (14-
14-14) had a higher leaf count than the slow release fertilizer. It was noted that plants
applied with Osmocote (15-9-12) and Osmocote (14-14-14) developed flower bud earlier
than the other slow release fertilizer no significant differences was noted on the number
of slips produced at flowering.
Effect of the rates of application of slow release fertilizer on the growth and yield
of chives was found not significant in all the parameter considered. The different rates of
application had not affected the plant performance, only it was observed that increasing
the rate promotes earlier flowering of the plants.
As to the interaction between the kinds and rates of the slow release fertilizer
application, it was found no significance. However Higher ROI was computed on the
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
22
application of 5g/pot Multicote, 10 g/pot Complete (14-14-14) and 10 g/pot Osmocote
(15-9-12).
Conclusions
It is therefore concluded that application of Osmocote (15-9-12) and Osmocote
(14-14-14) to chive plant improved the growth, flowering and yield of the crop.
Application of 10 g.pot of Osmocote (15-9-12) enhanced the production of thicker and
heavier leaves of the plants and registered the highest ROI at 124%; followed by
application of 5 g/pot Multicote (17-17-17) with 113% ROI. On the other hand
application of 10 g/pot of Complete (14-14-14) fertilizer produce ROI with these applied
with slow release fertilizers because it had the lowest expenses or cost of production.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, application of 10 g/pot of Osmocote (15-9-12)
is the best slow release fertilizer for chive production as to the yield and to return on
investment which was 124%.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
23
LITERATURE CITED
AUST, T. D. 2008. Slow Release Fertilizer vs. Quick Release Fertilizer. Retrieved from
09/22/09
http://search.yahoo.com/search?=slow+release+fertilizer+fertilizer+
vs+quick+release+fertilizer
BUYAS, N. A. 1994. Effects of organic and inorganic fertilize on the growth and
flowering of English daisy. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 55.
CHAONG, L. B. 1987. Fertilization of Shasta daisy. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 4-5
DAY- A, J. M. 1999. Growth, Flowering and Yield of Chrysanthemum as Affected By
Slow Release Fertilizer. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 9.
FAUSTINO, J. B. 1998. Growth, Flowering, and Yield of Chrysanthemum as Affected
By Different Rates of N- P- K Fertilizer Application. BS Thesis. BSU La
Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 33-35.
FRENCH AND ALSBURG. 1989. Comparison of Controlled Fertilizer for the
Production of Rhododendron ‘ Anna Rave Whitney’. Hort. Sci. Pp. 15-19.
HARTMANN, H. T., KESTER, D. E., and DAVIES, F. T. JR. 1986. Plant propagation,
principles and practices. Englewood cliffs New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Pp. 479-
481; 488-489.
POINCELOT, R. P. 2004. Sustainable Horticulture. United States of America. Pearson
Education, Inc. Pp. 743-744.
REHM, K. G. 1994. Fertilizer Management and Technology. Houston Texas: Academic
Press, Inc. Pp. 179-188
SCOTTS, C. 1996. Growing medium and fertilization regime influences growth and
Essential oil of Rosemary. Hort. Sci. Pp. 26-91
TORIO, J. M. 2000. Effect of Different Rates of Inorganic Fertilizer on the Growth Of
Snapdragon. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 18 – 20.
WATTS, R. L. 1972. Vegetable Gardening. New York: Orange Judd Pub., Co. P. 156.
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
24
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Final height at flowering (cm)
TREATMENT ___________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
F1R1
58
58
55
44
215
54
R2
45
53
51
56
202
51
R3
50
50
54
57
211
53
F2R1
57
43
55
48
205
51
R2
55
53
57
52
217
54
R3
53
49
48
52
202
51
F3R1
45
49
47
58
199
50
R2
55
51
53
57
216
54
R3
54
57
57
48
216
54
F4R1
48
54
61
50
213
53
R2
54
56
53
52
215
54
R3
52
53
56
49
210
53
F5R1
44
58
52
51
212
53
R2
53
49
58
47
199
50
R3
53
53
51
55
207
52
F6R1
51
52
61
40
195
49
R2
52
58
53
41
206
52
R3
45
51
56
50
201
50
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
25
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication
3
112.0417
37.3072
Factor A
5
64.9583
12.9917
0.59ns
2.41 3.43
Factor B
2
5.3333
2.6667
0.12 ns
3.22 5.08
AB
10
136.3333
13.6333
0.62 ns
1.95 2.72
Error
51
1128.2083
22.1217
TOTAL 71
1446.8750
ns -not significant
Coefficient of variation = 9.05 %
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
26
Appendix Table 2. Number of leaves/treatment at flowering
TREATMENT ___________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
F1R1
8
10
12
12
42
11
R2
12
12
13
11
48
12
R3
12
10
13
11
48
F2R1
12
13
18
12
46
12
R2
12
13
16
16
57
14
R3
14
11
16
10
51
13
F3R1
13
11
12
16
52
13
R2
7
10
12
13
42
11
R3
11
11
11
14
50
13
F4R1
15
12
13
18
58
15
R2
12
12
15
10
49
12
R3
11
10
15
13
49
12
F5R1
13
11
19
11
54
14
R2
11
18
17
13
59
15
R3
10
11
9
9
59
10
F6R1
11
12
10
13
46
12
R2
15
15
13
16
59
15
R3
12
18
12
10
52
13
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
27
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication
3
36.9306
12.3102
Factor A
5
44.2361
8.8472
1.76ns
2.41 3.43
Factor B
2
20.5278
10.2639
2.05ns
3.22 5.08
AB
10
90.1389
9.0139
1.80ns
1.95 2.72
Error
51
255.8194
5.0161
TOTAL 71
447.6528
ns -not significant
Coefficient of variation = 17.82%
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
28
Appendix Table 3. Weight of harvested leaves per treatment (g)
TREATMENT ___________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
F1R1
7
11
11
12
41
10.25
R2
14
9
13
11
47
11.75
R3
10
10
9
9
48
12.00
F2R1
20
9
15
15
65
16.25
R2
12
14
16
16
57
14.25
R3
14
8
10
10
51
12.75
F3R1
15
11
16
16
52
13.00
R2
8
10
16
16
43
10.75
R3
13
11
17
17
53
13.25
F4R1
14
11
18
18
61
15.25
R2
13
10
7
7
49
12.25
R3
17
17
14
14
67
16.75
F5R1
9
8
13
13
43
10.75
R2
11
19
17
10
57
14.25
R3
10
19
15
5
49
12.25
F6R1
10
15
15
15.
55
13.75
R2
18
16
21
21
82
20.50
R3
15
20
16
16
53
13.25
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
29
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIANCE
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
3
89.8194
29.9398
Factor A
5
313.9028
62.7806
5.20**
2.41 3.43
Factor B
2
6.7778
3.3889
0.28ns
3.22 5.08
AB
10
201.7222
20.1722
1.67ns
1.95 2.72
Error
51
615.4306
12.0673
TOTAL 71
1227.6528
** _ highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 25.60%
ns - not significant
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
30
Appendix Table 4. Number of slips at harvest
TREATMENT ___________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
F1R1
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
R2
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
R3
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
F2R1
2
1
2
2
7
1.75
R2
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
R3
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
F3R1
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
R2
1
1
2
2
6
1.50
R3
3
2
2
2
8
2.00
F4R1
2
2
2
3
9
2.25
R2
2
3
2
2
9
2.25
R3
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
F5R1
2
1
3
3
9
2.25
R2
1
2
2
2
7
1.75
R3
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
F6R1
1
2
2
2
7
1.75
R2
2
3
2
2
9
2.25
R3
2
2
2
2
8
2.00
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
31
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIANCE
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
3
0.5556
0.1852
Factor A
5
0.5000
0.1000
0.60ns
2.41 3.43
Factor B
2
0.0833
0.0417
0.25ns
3.22 5.08
AB
10
2.4167
0.2417
1.46ns
1.95 2.72
Error
51
8.4444
0.1656
TOTAL 71
12.0000
ns -not significant
Coefficient of variation = 20.35%
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
32
Appendix Table 5. Number of days from planting to flower bud formation
TREATMENT ___________REPLICATION_________ TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
F1R1
111
105
108
87
411
103
R2
108
113
105
79
405
101
R3
110
102
110
89
411
103
F2R1
103
111
112
108
434
109
R2
121
117
98
98
434
109
R3
100
108
79
73
360
90
F3R1
104
113
109
106
432
108
R2
109
107
121
111
448
112
R3
121
105
81
107
414
104
F4R1
116
77
98
99
390
98
R2
108
96
92
76
373
93
R3
112
83
75
114
384
96
F5R1
110
129
112
104
455
114
R2
107
110
114
100
431
108
R3
114
117
114
97
442
111
F6R1
121
98
86
78
383
96
R2
106
96
78
97
377
94
R3
108
110
78
75
371
93
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
33
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
VARIANCE
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
3
2805.8333 935.2778
Factor A
5
2538.1111 507.6222
3.95**
2.41 3.43
Factor B
2
330.5287 165.2639
1.29ns
3.22 5.08
AB
10
864.9722 86.4972
0.67ns
1.95 2.72
Error
51
6557.1667 128.5719
TOTAL 71
**- highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 11.10%
ns - not significant
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
34
Appendix Table 6. Return On Investment (ROI)
Treatment
Yield
Gross
Total
Net
ROI (%)
(g/pot)
sales
expenses Income
(PhP)
Control
127
34.68
29.94
4.74
10
Multicote(17-17-17) 5 g/pot
203
71.05
33.37
37.68
113
10 g/pot
166
58.00
38.97
19.00
49
15 g/pot
152
53.20
44.57
8.63
19
Agroblen (18-6-12) 5 g/pot
152
53.20
44.57
8.63
19
10 g/pot
127
54.95
37.44
17.51
47
15 g/pot
146
51.00
42.26
8.74
21
Osmocote(14-14-14) 5 g/pot
183
64.00
32.60
31.40
96
10 g/pot
145
50.75
37.44
13.31
36
15 g/pot
199
69.65
42.26
27.39
65
Osmocote (15-9-12) 5 g/pot
160
56.00
32.60
23.40
72
10 g/pot
239
83.65
37.40
46.25
124
15 g/pot
200
70.00
42.26
27.74
66
Complete(14-14-14) 5 g/pot
127
44.45
28.27
16.18
14
10 g/pot
168
58.80
28.77
30.00
104
15 g/pot
144
50.40
28.27
22.13
78
*Total expenses include: planting materials (bulbs of chives), plastic pots, slow release
fertilizers, labor
* Priced at PhP 35/ 100g in the month of March 2010
Growth and Yield of Potato Entries Under Organic Production
at Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet / Benjie Z. Imarga. 2009
Document Outline
- Growth and Yield of Chives (Allium
schoenoprasum as Affected by Different Kinds and Rates of Slow Release Fertilizer
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES