BIBLIOGRAPHY MENDOZA, CYRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013. Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield
of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’). Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet
Adviser: Franklin G. Bawang, MSc.
ABSTRACT
Growth and yield response to varying mokusaku concentrations on ‘Great Lakes
XL’ lettuce were evaluated from November 2012 to January 2013 at the Balili
Experimental area, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Results of the study revealed that lettuce crops applied with 5ml of mokusaku per
liter of water induced the production of heavier and bigger head size. The application of
10ml mokusaku per liter of water produced more marketable yield of 7.10 kg per 5m2 plot.
However, the application at different concentrations of mokusaku alone mixed with water
did not significantly affected the growth and yield performance of lettuce in terms of
marketable, non-marketable, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare.
Based on the results, the application of 10 ml mokusaku per liter of water obtained
the highest return on investment of 78.90 %. Mokusaku as organic fertilizer can be applied
at the rate of 10 ml per liter of water for lettuce production.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Marketable Yield per Plot
Table 1 shows that the application of 10 ml of mokusaku per liter of water produced
the heaviest marketable yield per plot but did not significantly differ from the rest of the
treatment means. The results may be explained by the other data gathered where there were
no significant differences on the non-marketable yield per plot, total yield and computed
yield per hectare implying that the concentration of mokusaku will not affect the
marketable yield of lettuce regardless of the concentration used.
Non-marketable Yield per Plot
There were no significant differences indicated in the non-marketable yield of
lettuce applied with the different rates of mokusaku and the no application as shown in
Table 1. This means that the different treatments did not influence the weight of non-
marketable yield per plot produced at harvest.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Table 1. Marketable and non-marketable of lettuce as affected by different concentration
of Mokusaku (kg)
CONCENTRATION MARKETABLE YIELD NON-MARKETABLE YIELD
OF MOKUSAKU (%) PER PLOT (kg) PER PLOT (kg)
0 4.83a 2.11a
5 6.15a 1.80a
10 7.10a 1.74a
15
5.87a 2.45a
20 5.45a 3.00a
Within a column means with common letters are not significant at 5% level by DMRT
Total Yield per Plot
As presented in Table 1, there were no significant differences in the total yield per
plot of lettuce applied with the different rates of mokusaku. This means that the application
of mokusaku at different concentration did not influence the weight of marketable and non-
marketable yield produced at harvest.
Computed Yield per Hectare
The computed yield per hectare from the different treatments did not reveal
significant differences among the treatment means (Table 1). As mentioned earlier, the
similar results in the computed yield per hectare is consistent with the results in marketable
yield per plot, non-marketable yield per plot and total yield per plot where there were no
significant differences noted in all the treatments.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Table 2. Total yield per plot and computed yield of lettuce as affected by different
concentration of mokusaku (kg)
CONCENTRATION TOTAL COMPUTED YIELD
OF MOKUSAKU (%) YIELD (kg) (t/ha)
0 6.94a 9.65a
5 7.96a 12.06a
10 8.84a 14.20a
15
8.18a 11.45a
20 8.45a 10.89a
Within a column means with common letters are not significant at 5% level by DMRT
Average Head Weight and Size
Although the statistical analysis indicates that there were no significant differences
among the treatments in terms of the weight and size of individual heads, the application
of 5 ml mokusaku produced slightly heavier weight per head closely followed by the
application of 10 ml and 15 ml concentrations having the same means. In terms of head
size, the application of 10 ml mokusaku induced the production of slightly bigger heads in
diameter as presented in Table 3. Statistically, the results might not be significant but
economically the slightly heavier heads may give significant advantage in per hectare basis.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Table 3. Average head weight and size circumference of lettuce as affected by different
concentration of mokusaku at harvest
CONCENTRATION HEAD WEIGHT HEAD SIZE
OF MOKUSAKU (%) (kg) (cm)
0 0.21a 43.85a
5 0.25a 46.10a
10 0.23a 46.20a
15 0.23a 45.05a
20 0.21a 44.90a
Within a column means with common letters are not significant at 5% level by DMRT
Bacterial Soft Rot and Cutworm Infestation
As shown in table 3, there were slight incidence of bacterial soft rot and cutworm
infestation and there were no significant statistical differences among the treatments.
Bacterial soft rot is a common disease caused by a soil dwelling bacteria. It does
not appear to survive in the soil but can survive on plant debris. Infected plant tissues first
develop a water-soaked lesion that enlarges rapidly in diameter and depth. The affected
area becomes soft and mushy and generally turns a dark color in advanced stages of disease
development. Rainfall and high temperature enhances infection in the field. Soft rot
bacteria can grow over a temperature range of 5-37oC and with an optimum temperature of
about 22oC. Cutworms are oil-welling nocturnal caterpillar of several moths, which eat
plant roots. The worst damage is done to young plants with tap roots wherein lettuce suffers
especially badly. The cutworms eat the stem or just below the soil surface. The plant
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
eventually collapses, but by then the cutworm is attacking another plant. This can happen
suddenly, but early warning signs are wilting and stunted growth. In fact, they often work
along rows, killing one plant after another (Lettuce Pest Guide, 2011).
Table 4. Incidence of bacterial soft rot and cutworm infestation rating as affected by
different mokusaku concentrations
CONCENTRATION
OF MOKUSAKU (%) BACTERIAL SOFT ROT CUT WORM
0 2.25a 2.50a
5 2.00a 2.00a
10 2.25a 2.00a
15 2.00a 2.25a
20 2.25a 2.00a
Within a column means with common letters are not significant at 5% level by DMRT
Rating
a. Disease Infection b. Insect Infestation
ScaleDescriptionScaleDescription
1 No disease 1 No infestation
2 (1-19%) Slight Incidence 2 (1-19%) Slight Infestation
3 (20-39%) Moderate Incidence 3 (20-39%) Moderate Infestation
4 (40% or more) Severe Incidence 4 (40% or more) Severe Infestation
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Table 5. Return on cash expenses (ROCE) from lettuce per 100m2 as affected by
Different concentration of mokusaku.
ITEMS CONCENTRATION OF MOKUSAKU
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
SALES
@ P25/kg 19.3 24.61 28.4 22.9 21.78
TOTAL SALES (P) 386 492.2 568 458 435.6
Farm Inputs
Seeds 40 40 40 40 40
P CM 80 80 80 80 80
Mokusaku - 30 60 90 120
Labor
Land Preparation 50 50 50 50 50
Planting 10 10 10 10 10
Irrigation 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5
Weeding 5 5 5 5 5
Treatment Application 7 7 7 7 7
Harvesting 50 50 50 50 50
Expenses (P) 275.5 287.5 317.5 347.5 3 77.5
Net Income (P) 128.5 204.7 250.5 110.5 58.1
ROCE (%) 49.90 71.2 78.90 31.80 15.40
Rank 3 2 1 4 5
Area: 100m2=600 plants
Legend:
T1 – 0
T2 – 5 ml/L
T3 – 10 ml/L
T4 – 15 ml/L
T5 – 20 ml/L
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Soil Analysis
The soil analysis in the experiment area before land preparation had a pH of 5.63
and contained 2.5% organic matter, 63 ppm phosphorus and 400 ppm potassium. After the
experiment, the soil had a pH of 5.85 and contained 2.0% organic matter, 88 ppm
phosphorus, and 240 ppm potassium.
Appendix Table 6. Soil analysis
P, ppm
K, ppm
OM (%)
pH
Initial
63
400
2.5
5.63
Final
88
240
2.0
5.85
ppm (parts per million)
Appendix Table 7. Component of mokusaku
Group of
Name of
Characteristics
Chemical
Chemical
Alcohol
Methanol
Water-Solvent, Poisonous
Ethanol
Water-Solvent
Ketone
Acetone
Water-Solvent
Carboxylic
Acetic acid
Main-Ingredient of Vinegar, Pungent smell
Acid
Propionic acid
Flavor material, Pungent smell
Lactic acid
Flavor material, Rancid smell
Valeric acid
Flavor material, Rancid smell
Crotonic acid
----
Benzoic acid
Food antiseptic, Flavor, Cosmetics, Industrial
material
Furan
Furtural
Flavor (Aromatic substance of coffee, etc.)
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Tetrahydrofurfuryl Flavor (Aromatic substance of coffee, etc.)
alcohol
Solvent
2-Acetylfuran
Flavor (Aromatic substance of coffee, etc.)
5-Methylfurfural
Flavor (Aromatic substance of coffee, etc.)
Furfuryl alcohol
Flavor (Aromatic substance of coffee, etc.)
Phenol
Phenol
Bactericidal antiseptic
Guaiacol
Guaiacol
Bactericidal, Pungent smell promoter
4-Methyguaiacol
Bactericidal, Pungent smell promoter
4-Ethyguaiacol
Bactericidal, Pungent smell promoter
Vanillin
Flavor (Food flavor, Vanilla flavor)
Acetoguaiacone
----
Syringol
Syrigol
Pungent smell palliative
4-Methylsyringol
Pungent smell palliative
4-Ethylsyringol
Pungent smell palliative
4-Propylsyringol
Pungent smell palliative
Alkyle Phenol
o-Cresol
Bacterial disinfectant, Wood antiseptic
m-Cresol
Bacterial disinfectant, Wood antiseptic
p-Cresol
Bacterial disinfectant, Wood antiseptic
2.6 Xylenol
Industrial material
2.5 Xylenol
Industrial material
4-Ethylphenol
Industrial material
3.5-Xylenol
Industrial material
Others
r-Butyrolactone
Flavor (Food flavor)
Cylotene
Flavor (Aromatic substances of coffee, etc.)
Solvent
Maltol
Flavor (Food flavor, Sugar-like flavor)
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted from October 2012 to January 2012 at the Balili
Experimental Area, at the Department of Horticulture, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet to evaluate the growth and yield performance of lettuce applied with
different concentration of mokusaku, determine the best rate of application of
mokusaku and to find out if the cost of production by the use of expensive fertilizers,
insecticides and fungicides will be reduced.
Results of the study revealed that there were no significant differences obtained on
applying mokusaku. However, the slight differences in the growth and yield resulted
in the differences in the return on investment (ROCE). The application of 10ml
mokusaku per liter of water obtained the highest return on investment of 78.90%
followed by the application of 5ml mokusaku with 71.2%, no application with 49.90%,
15ml mokusaku with 31.80% and 20ml mokusaku with 15.40%.
Conclusion
Based on the results presented and discussed, the application of mokusaku
concentration to lettuce did not produced significant differences in term of growth and
yield. Among the different rates of applying mokusaku, 10 ml per liter of water may
provide higher profit to the lettuce grower.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
Recommendations
It is therefore recommended that mokusaku can be applied at the rate of 10ml per
liter of water for organic production of lettuce based on the return on cash expenses. It
is also recommended that the results of the study be verified not only in lettuce but also
in other crops to validate research results.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013
LITERATURE CITED
EDMUND, J. B., T. L. SEANN and F. S. ANDREWS. 1964. Fundamentals of Horticulture
Dew Delhi: Tata. McGraw Hill Publ., Ltd. Pp. 203 – 205.
KNOTT, J. E. and J. R. DEANON. 1967. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia. UPLB,
Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 277 – 283.
KRAMER, J.P. 1966. Plant and Soil Relationship – A Modern Synthesis.McGraw – Hill
Co., New York. P. 50.
LETTUCE PEST GUIDE, 2011. Retrieved from www.slhfarm.com/lettucepest.html.
MALAB, B.S. 1991. Preliminary experiment on the response of potatoes to Green Bee
Foliar Fertilizer. BS Thesis (unpublished). Mariano Marcos Memorial State
University, Batac, IlocosNorte. P. 22.
MC VICKAR, M. H. 1970. Using Commercial Fertilizer. Illinois: Interstate Publ. and
Printers Corp. P. 20.
MUK SHE JEE, M. H. and DERATAT. 1969. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus spray
on potatoes. World farming. P. 20.
SUBIDO, P. S. 1961. The rate of fertilizer in crop production.Plant Ind. Digest. Pp. 203 –
204.
TURK, L. M. 1972. Fundamentals of Soil Science. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
P. 350.
YOKOMORI, MASAKI. 2011. Farmers in Benguet Practice Savers Technology. Pp. 1-17.
Effect of mokusaku on the growth and yield of lettuce (‘Great Lakes XL’)|
MENDOZA, CYRIL D. APRIL 2013